home

Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, Possibly for Air Strike

Larisa at Raw Story reports that two aircraft carriers, the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Enterprise are headed to the Middle East and Western Pacific. The USS Ronald Reagan is positioned in the Gulf.

Larisa reports the U.S. could be gearing up for air strikes in Iran, possibly in June.

...military and intelligence sources are expressing concern both privately and publicly that air strikes on Iran could come earlier than believed.

Retired Air Force Colonel and former faculty member at the National War College Sam Gardiner has heard some military suggestions of a possible air campaign in the near future, and although he has no intimate knowledge of such plans, he says recent aircraft carrier activity and current operations on the ground in Iran have raised red flags. Gardiner says his concerns have kept him busy attempting to create the most likely scenario should such an attack occur.

Larisa's sources say:

Intelligence sources confirm hearing the allegations of a June attack, but have been unable to fully confirm that such an attack is in the works. Both the New Yorker and the Washington Post have previously reported that the Pentagon is studying military options on Iran.

All sources, however, agree that given the administration's interest in regime change, an attack on Iran is likely, regardless of international support or UN backing.

< Duke Lacrosse: DNA on Tissue Consistent With Third Player | Wrongfully Convicted Man Graduates From Law School, Aims to be Prosecutor >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    Deja vu all over again. And the media is beating the drums like good little indians. Duck Soup.

    Hurry up Fitz! off-topic: Jeralyn - will you be our class-action attorney when we sue the phone companies for $1,000 per instance of illegal wiretapping of our phones?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:51:54 PM EST
    And hopefully goad them into some sort Tonkin Gulf act of aggression or preemption. Effing warmongering scum. Oh excuse me, was that too uncivil?

    Obsessed, I'd love to but I've never done a class action. Can you carry this conversation on over at the NSA threads? Thanks. This one is Iran.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2006 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    From the post:
    Larisa reports the U.S. could be gearing up for air strikes in Iran, possibly in June.
    And may God be their co-pilot and keep them from harm's way.

    I find it even more interestng the French carrier De Gaulle is there also. The two fleets conducted an exercise together. The Reagan left port in Jan, so it is about time for her to be relieved to head home. Dastardly to be sure.

    "And may God be their co-pilot and keep them from harm's way"? Really? They remain our brave boys, and presumably some girls, and may God protect them, no matter what evil orders they follow? Perhaps there were good Germans who said the same thing about their gallant lads who were invading Russia. In fact, I'm sure there were. But it's a good thing for the world that God didn't protect those gallant lads, isn't it? Here's my longer reply.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:31:13 PM EST
    DavidD - They are there to keep you free, and have been there. Many have died in so doing, and all have sacrificed in ways that you will never understand. That you are free to make such snarky remarks is a demonstration of their success and the greatness of our constitutional republic. On a more personal note, I am sure you can imagine the two words I offer you.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#9)
    by Al on Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    Jim, are you willing to pray that God stand beside all Iranians and keep them out of harm's way? If not, perhaps you could explain why not.

    JimakaPPJ, Explain how an air strike on Iran keeps us free. Explain how the invasion and occupation of Iraq keeps us free. I was born in England during the blitz -- the child of a rabbi and his wife. It was the truly brave men of the RAF who kept me free from what would have been my fate had the gallant lads of the Luftwaffe succeeded. Don't lecture at me, puppy.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 07:01:04 PM EST
    I don't recall any declaration of war. If any US soldiers or airmen are put in harms way without it I would hope they follow lawful orders... and don't jeopardize themselves, their lives, and the reputation of their country, by following unlawful orders. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
    These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. "I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since. To Obey or Not to Obey?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    Al: Jim, are you willing to pray that God stand beside all Iranians and keep them out of harm's way? Al, I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for an answer to that, are you?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 07:16:34 PM EST
    btw, so far as I know, defending ones country against an attack, even an illegal one, is legal, and an obligation.

    The U.S. hasn't been in a war that are freedom was threatened since 1945, every war since then has been America attacking distant small countries either to make some corporations richer or to increase some scumbag like Bush's popularity.The Iraq war {at first} did noth. Now, it's just for the profits. BHut keep trying PPJ, every time I read your posts, I get a good belly laugh.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    Any God worth his salt would "guide them" on a freedom mission to a certain vegetable stand in Colorado first. Right now thats my fondest wish.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 07:54:55 PM EST
    I'll second that, Jondee...

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:08:49 PM EST
    DavidD - First a response to your snappy remark. Alas, I am not a puppy. I was born years before WWII and well remember watching my Father and uncles leave to serve. They all returned safely, although one with an injury and disability. I served over 10 years in Naval Aviation and yes, the RAF fought a gallant and successful battle. Their success saved England and gave the Allies a platform to launch the invasions that followed. I never comment further on my service. But I do ask those who play the military card if they served, in what branch and how long. I await your response in the hope that I can say that I honor your service. Al and DavidD - Thank you for your thoughtful questions and comments. The short answer is that if you do not understand my comment, you will never understand my comment. But in the most likely futile hope that I can change your opinion, I will offer a few thoughts. First, I do hope and pray that the Iranian government comes to its senses and decides that it should stop being a state sponsor of terrorism, and stops its development of nuclear weapons. Because that is what it is, and that is what they are trying to develop. In the likely event that they do not, I hope and pray that as many Iranians as possible are spared death and injury because I know that many of them do not support their government. In the event of war, as I am an American I hope and pray that none of our military are killed or injured. I also hope and pray that enough of the enemy, its military and infrastructure are killed and destroyed to bring us a quick victory. It is obvious that Iran has decided, after making buffoons of Europe's attempts at diplomacy, to challenge the world to stop it from having nuclear weapons. The "world" has, as it did in Chamberlain's time, cried out, "Peace in our time." The major difference is that Blair is not Chamberlain, although he leads a government that increasingly is. France remains France, and I am reminded that Patton said, "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me." But even France is showing some attention to history and recognizing that the time to act is before your enemy has breached your defenses and made obsolete the advantages your weapons brought. Simply stated Iran is making every indication that they do not believe the West will act, and they can do as they wish. This would be domination of the Arabian Peninsula, destruction of Israel and nuclear blackmail to Europe to isolate the US and, eventually, dominate the world. That their dreams of empire are silly is obvious, but the attempt, if we let it develop much further, will kill millions. There is a time for all things. Now is the time to act on Iran.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:09:15 PM EST
    Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages Obituaries

    October 5, 2018--George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States, died today at Methodist Hospital in Houston, Texas. He was 72. The cause of death was announced as heart failure.
    ...
    Mr. Bush in 2003 led a limited international coalition into Iraq and replaced Mr. Hussein with an occupying force, which over the next year was pushed back into consistently shrinking enclaves in the face of a fierce insurgency. Following his reelection in 2004, Mr. Bush ordered the destruction of the cities where the insurgents were thought to be concentrated; though the cities were destroyed, the insurgency continued. Mr. Bush then pressed on to Iran and North Korea, which he had identified as "rogue states."
    ...
    Mr. Bush then ordered what he described as "pinpoint" nuclear attacks on the nuclear sites in Iran and North Korea, which, while achieving their goals, also led to the One-Day War, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan that left Bombay and Karachi in ruins and led to the fall of the governments of both countries, and to the withdrawal of the American-led coalition forces from Iraq. The result was the series of still-continuing civil wars throughout the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent that, while involving no unconventional weapons since 2006 have, according to the United Nations, caused the deaths of 12 million people and the displacement of millions more......



    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:14:16 PM EST
    edger - There are many things that are immoral but legal and there are many things that are moral but illegal. It is up to each of us to decide.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:20:01 PM EST
    bigunit12 - I am here only to serve. edger, Jondee, etc. - The quality of your comments demonstrate your reasoning abilities. Jondee - Please do not send customers. The garden is not yet producing.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:20:08 PM EST
    Or, in your case have decided for you by the guy with the most money and the most guns.

    The DeGaulle is there? I thought her propellors fell off and the radiation in her engine room was too high. Hmm. Anyway, it looks as if the choice is Iran with nukes or Iran without nukes. Which is your choice, and if it's the latter, how do we achieve it? The mad mullahs have played the EU for fools for months (years?), so presumably any plan you have won't involve more of the same. Right? I'm sure that Bush would be interested in some way to achieve Iran without nukes and without war, so if you know a better plan, step right up. Or if you think Iran with nukes would be acceptable, say so. Also include Plan B, in case it doesn't work out they way you think. Nobody I know of who's talked about a military solution thinks it's good. It's just the least worst, which adults know is sometimes the situation you find yourself in, not susceptible to change by whining.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:21:27 PM EST
    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:25:30 PM EST
    ppj, the day I hold you're opinion of what constitutes reasoning in any kind of esteem, is the day I'll have myself checked in somewhere.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:27:27 PM EST
    Hate don't negotiate. Hate doesn't send letters. Hate destroys. "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love" Che

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:29:17 PM EST
    RA, Your wasting your hate mongering at this site.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    I'm sure that Bush would be interested in some way to achieve Iran without nukes and without war, so if you know a better plan, step right up. Iran says it's nuclear technology development is for peaceful purposes; for power generation only. They say they need enriched uranium for this. Call the bluff. Offer to enrich uranium for them in the US. Bush would be interested in some way to achieve Iran without nukes and without war??? Iran has offered to talk. Bush has responded to Irans letter by dismissing Irans offer and ordering the Abraham Lincoln and the Enterprise to the Middle East and Western Pacific.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    Che - Many have been killed for love. RA - Good to see you back. But surely you don't expect "adult" answers.. Jondee - Pick a nice spot and ask for a room away from the traffic.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#29)
    by Strick on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:34:11 PM EST
    Raw Story tends to remind me of the National Enquirer, so I don't take much of what they publish seriously. Then, too, there's this: Signs That the United States is About to Bomb Iran
    Before any major military operation, there are always tell tale signs. With all the talk about Israel or the United States bombing Iran's nuclear weapons program, it would be wise to check for the signs before taking the pundit prattle too seriously. The U.S. Navy stages a "surge exercise" and moves six carrier battle groups into the Indian Ocean. A "regularly scheduled exercise" moves Patriot Missile Batteies to Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. These exercises happen from time to time, but if they happen when other things are happening... Movement of B-52 and B1B bombers to the island of Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean). Deployment of F117 stealth bombers and F-22 fighters to anywhere in the Persian Gulf. Deployment of B-2 Stealth Bombers to Guam, where there are special facilities for maintaining these aircraft. Lockdown of Whitman Air Force Base (where most B-2 bombers are stationed) in Missouri. Increased delivery of Pizza to Pentagon Sudden loss of cell service near some air force bases (from which heavy bombers would depart). At the same time, there would be sightings of Middle Eastern looking guys around these bases, trying to get their cell phones to work, while being observed by what appears to be FBI agents. Deployment of KC-135/KC-10 aerial tankers to Diego Garcia, Guam and the Persian Gulf. America asks nations neighboring Iran for basing and over flight rights..."
    We don't seem to be quite there yet.

    Che. Me? Hate? I'm asking a couple of questions. How does this get solved? What are your preferences? Now, you might be getting defensive if you don't want anybody to know what your preferences really are, or if you don't want anybody to know you don't have a better plan (the kind that might work, I mean). It's clearly a Good Thing to wish this wasn't the situation, but that's not the same as it not actually being the situation. It's a Good Thing to wish or insist there's a better way, but that doesn't mean there's really a better way. The kind that might work, I mean. Call it hate if you want. I see defensiveness.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:36:00 PM EST
    Sounds like you've had some experience. Did they set aside a place for you to set up your "men" in there?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    step right up. Call the bluff.... Or get out of the game. Offer to enrich uranium for them in the US.

    I thought about calling the Iranian's bluff. The problem is what they do with the stuff once we give it to them. If they start refinishing it and stuffing it into warheads, will the current opposition to military action change? Permit me to say, no effing way. "Offered to talk."? Nope. Offered to let Bush watch them continue. Also offered Bush the opportunity to become a Muslim (see the sign off)--which, when he does not, clears the decks, so to speak, for jihad. I gave up on this site long ago because the vilification and lack of actual thinking was depressing. I came back to watch the lax thing, since nobody else seemed to be paying as much attention. And here I am with something else. Edger. Presume Bush offered to call their bluff and the Iranians went ahead. Turned him down. Kept on working on the bomb. Are you willing to go on record as saying that you'd support military action then? Or are you just trying to kick the can down the road, planning on thinking of something else later on? To spread the thing a bit wider, under what circumstances would you support military action?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:43:06 PM EST
    The U.S, Israel and Iran in a MAD situation would certainly upset a few plans wouldnt it?

    Che. Me? Hate? I'm asking a couple of questions. How does this get solved? What are your preferences? Now, you might be getting defensive if you don't want anybody to know what your preferences really are, or if you don't want anybody to know you don't have a better plan (the kind that might work, I mean). It's clearly a Good Thing to wish this wasn't the situation, but that's not the same as it not actually being the situation. It's a Good Thing to wish or insist there's a better way, but that doesn't mean there's really a better way. The kind that might work, I mean. Call it hate if you want. I see defensiveness.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:48:02 PM EST
    Presume Bush offered to call their bluff and the Iranians went ahead. Turned him down. Then you might, might, have some credibility. Maybe. Your problem is that if they accepted it, with verification, there would be no excuse for attacking them....

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Thu May 11, 2006 at 08:50:26 PM EST
    And that is unthinkable...

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:03:41 PM EST
    R.A - Are you telling me you havnt heard about the discussions of "regime change" in the M.E on the part of the usual PNAC suspects that go back a good ten years? This "new crisis" b.s has a long history and the Iranian belligerence is in good measure the same territorial, defensive responce - with a little grandstanding for their public - that any regime under perceived outside threat has had since the dawn of civilisation. Lets not pretend that Bush's people have done everything they can to avoid escalating the situation, we've all seen their little position papers; they've had a grandiose vision for hegemony in the M.E and the countries in the region are all perfectly aware of it.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:08:11 PM EST
    They only invoke Allah for their own purposes.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:16:49 PM EST
    Sky-Ho writes:
    Excellent question. I see the trolls cannot seem to answer it, hoping around like Mexican jumping beans.
    I answered Al's question and your trollish comment 57 minutes before you posted your comment. Perhaps the ego you referred to resides between your ears??

    Good morning Peeps. See what happens when one goes to bed. I have just done my bit here. And prepared here. So I shall sit complacently, and hum a few tunes. These are going round the old head at the moment, perhaps all you ageing flower children will hum along. "we're on the eve of destruction" A little early to be celebrating, maybe later. "It's good news week, someone dropped a bomb somewhere, contaminating atmosphere, blackening the sky" Oh what a lovely war were going to have. And just think of the gas milage we will all get from that radioactive oil. Jump in the old car and she'll be off like a bomb, whoops.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#42)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    RA, First you troll in: Anyway, it looks as if the choice is Iran with nukes or Iran without nukes. The mad mullahs have played the EU for fools for months (years?) The DeGaulle is there? I thought her propellors fell off and the radiation in her engine room was too high. Then when you get called on it you whine: Me? Hate? I'm asking a couple of questions. I gave up on this site long ago because the vilification and lack of actual thinking was depressing. I came back to watch the lax thing, since nobody else seemed to be paying as much attention. Thanks for stopping by. Don't let the door hit you in the ...

    I've got a bad feeling about this.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Thu May 11, 2006 at 10:30:00 PM EST
    The pinhead and his minions were probobly thinking something like: when the numbers get into the twenties we attack somebody. Scum. Or, should I say, scum on the march for freedom.

    I've got a bad feeling about this.
    It was always going to be on the cards. The man is insane. It lies at the door of congress as much as Bush, if congress had done half the job they were supposed to do this situation would never have arisen. And all the crap about supporting the troops, if shrub lets one fly I wouldn't want to be one of the boys on the ground in Iraq. Is this what it is going to take to wake people up? It's all a bit drastic.

    Hey George you d man, Can't do it? yes he can. On this runaway train, What can we gain. Such fun, let's nuke Iran.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:41:02 AM EST
    Is this what it is going to take to wake people up? Surprise. And it's not even October yet.... Iran no imminent threat:
    May 12 2006 Amsterdam - [Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)] has welcomed moves to avert possible UN sanctions against Tehran for its nuclear programme and appealed for compromise as Iran's president said he was ready to talk. Tehran says it wants to produce low-grade enriched uranium to use in atomic power reactors, not the highly enriched uranium used to make bombs. Diplomats say ElBaradei has privately told Western leaders they may have to accept a limited Iranian enrichment programme under IAEA monitoring as it was a matter of national pride, and that to insist on scrapping it might only bolster Iranian hardliners. He and other IAEA veterans were also unhappy about the Security Council's intervention. They fear that a rush to punish Iran before having found hard evidence of bomb-making could drive it out of the Non-proliferation Treaty and its nuclear project underground. ElBaradei has said Iran poses "no imminent threat". During a visit to Indonesia, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran was "ready to engage in dialogue". He was responding to a question on a letter he sent to US President George Bush this week, the first by an Iranian president to his US counterpart since Washington cut ties with Iran in 1980 following Iran's 1979 revolution. The US has dismissed the letter...
    Iran has offered to talk. Bush has responded to Irans letter by dismissing Irans offer and ordering the Abraham Lincoln and the Enterprise to the Middle East and Western Pacific. What option besides an illegal preemptive attack is there, we've been asked. A simple one. Offer to enrich uranium for them in the US. Of course, the problem is that if they accept, with verification, there would be no excuse for attacking them... and we can't have that, now can we? No wargasm?

    A simple one. Offer to enrich uranium for them in the US.
    I fear this offer would be as welcome as the pox. Are you straying from your normal path or realism Edger? A couple of stumbling blocks on that path might well be national pride and the right to self determination. And for all your rational arguements let us not forget, one player in this game, if not two, seems to have no concept of rationale. Had he any, the last thing he would be doing would be posturing and positioning himself into the proveriable corner. For should Iran tell him to go Cheney himself, what options are there for a man, who like a train, is set between rails, and nere a junction in sight?

    Che: I didn't read RA posts, but your post pointing out about the Carrier De Gaulle: The new French nuclear carrier "Charles de Gaulle" has suffered from a seemingly endless string of problems since it was first conceived in 1986. The 40,000 ton ship has cost over four billion dollars so far and is slower than the steam powered carrier it replaced. Flaws in the "de Gaulle" have led it to using the propellers from it predecessor, the "Foch," because the ones built for "de Gaulle" never worked right and the propeller manufacturer went out of business in 1999. Worse, the nuclear reactor installation was done poorly, exposing the engine crew to five times the allowable annual dose of radiation. There were also problems with the design of the deck, making it impossible to operate the E-2 radar aircraft that are essential to defending the ship and controlling offensive operations. Many other key components of the ship did not work correctly, including several key electronic systems. The carrier has been under constant repair and modification. The "de Gaulle" took eleven years to build (1988-99) and was not ready for service until late 2000. It's been downhill ever since. The de Gaulle is undergoing still more repairs and modifications. The government is being sued for exposing crew members to dangerous levels of radiation. From Strategy Page.

    Medals of honour all round then? For my sins I did on occassion have to drive my wife's 2CV just about the only thing that induced mal der mer on dry land.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 04:41:28 AM EST
    Oscar - I think an Iranian response to offering to enrich uranium for them would immediately tell us whether Iran is being honest when they say they want it only for power generation purposes, not for weapons production. If Iran accepted it would show up all the demonization of them for the duplicitous pack of lies that it is. I also made the suggestion to see the trolls response. As I said earlier, If Iran accepted such an offer it would remove all justification for attack. For that reason bushco, and our pet trolls, would never support making such an offer in good faith because it would mean working with Iran, and deny them the war they want.

    Edger. And I want a date with Calista Flokhart cos I'd like to explore her mind. We both know why Iran wants fissile material. For the same reason they need a reactor when they are sat on an oil lake. It's the bloody rush to the precapice that pisses me. Can't chat, taking the Mammy out. Anon.

    If the French Navy managed to find a tugboat to haul the deGaulle to the scene, then it means the effort isn't unilateral. How bad does something have to be to get the French in? What would Edger do if the Iranians, 1, turned down his offer to enrich the uranium, or 2, took the offer but kept building bombs? More broadly, what would justify military force? Nobody's answered the question of which they prefer, Iran with or Iran without, and if the latter how to get there. el Baradei isn't the best source. I don't know who is, since Ghaddafi gave up a hell of a lot more nuclear program than anyboy had a clue he'd had, along with 500 tons of mustard gas that was a complete surprise. The IAEA missed that, along with the CIA. But, anyway, don't be defensive. This is a free country. Nobody goes to jail for expressing preferences. Go ahead. It is a Good Thing to wish the situation were better. That's not the same as the situation really is better. It's a Good Thing to wish there were methods to fix this that are both effective and not violent, which is not to say that wishes make it so. Far as I know, the US' policy has been to wait for the mad mullahs to die off, either of natural causes such as being shot in the head--this being the ME, that qualifies--or being overthrown by the huge cohort of young Iranians who are anti-mad-mullah and probably pro-west. It will probably happen, eventually, but the nuke question increases the urgency. If the Iranian people threw out the mullahs and put in a pro-US democracy, would y'all be pleased? I ask because I honestly don't know.

    Killjoy time. Carries are replaced. The one leaving doesn't leave until the replacement ship is on scene. This means one is there, wherever that is, while the other is on the way. Cue the 'cello in the key of ominosity. This could be a routine rotation.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri May 12, 2006 at 06:47:03 AM EST
    I hope it's routine....but knowing who is in charge, their natural reaction to receiving a letter is sending a bomb. Can't leave those dollars on the table, only 2 more years of this defense industry free-for-all.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:13:57 AM EST
    Oscar - Uranium enrichment centrifuges and nuclear reactors can be used to produce slow reactions to generate electricity, and fast reactions to generate explosions. We all know this. Fire can be used to cook and keep warm with, and it can be used to burn, kill, and destroy. Shall we go after everyone who wants to use fire, because they may attack you back if you attack them? This is turning into the stupidest argument in the history of man. Anyone attacked will use any methods available to fight back. Every country on this planet will eventually acquire nuclear technology just as all of them at one time or another in the past acquired fire. There is no way to stop this eventual development, short of stifling and blocking scientific and technological progress, nor would anyone who isn't living their life quivering in fear of life want to. That has been tried in the past. One of the results was the dark ages. Every country on the planet will eventually acquire nuclear technology: perhaps at that point no country will risk attacking another, though there will always be psychotic nutjobs who want war no matter the cost, and want to retain enough power to lurch around the world like a nazi monster with hate and fear in their hearts, taking, at gunpoint, with no regard for anyone else - which has been the basis of US foreign policy in the Middle East, and everwhere else except where countries have grown strong enough to deter them. Russia and China for example. This is the real reason for wanting to attack Iran - to keep them weak enough to be able to continue the foreign policy of greed that has been pursued by successive US administrations for nearly a century. Every other reason advanced by those who want to attack Iran now is smokescreen. The cowards are too insecure and full of hatred to be able to work with the rest of the world. They think that for them to gain, someone else must lose. They have such limited imagination and confidence that they can see no other way. Did they really think the bill would never show up in the mailbox? Apparently so... The people who want to attack Iran want to do so because they are terrified that unless they do so now Iran will grow strong enough to fight back. Bedwetters... they'd better get themselves some plastic sheets. I suspect she is already.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:15:26 AM EST
    RA writes:
    Nobody's answered the question of which they prefer, Iran with or Iran without, and if the latter how to get there.
    What they prefer is to complain about Bush. Didn't you know? ;-)

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:27:29 AM EST
    edger writes:
    Every country on the planet will eventually acquire nuclear technology: perhaps at that point no country will risk attacking another,
    Everyone in the world will eventually be dead, but they are not wanting to hurry it. Given the poor state of Iran's economy, and given that it has a huge amount of oil, why do they rush to develop "nuclear power?" Because dear edger, it is a shield for their no longer secret attempt to produce a nuclear bomb. Good grief, listen to what the man is saying.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:33:04 AM EST
    First of all, let me state, I don't agree with Jim that we should be bombing Iran. But, to be consistent, I never thought we should bomb Iraq in 1991, that we should bomb anyone in Bosnia, Retaliate by bombing in Afghanistan, bopmb Iraq over the no-fly zone, nor invade Iraq to remove Saddam. I am offended by all acts of aggression. However, in regards to Edgars suggestion that we call their bluff, I believe the offer has always been there that enriched uranium is available from Europe and the West for their reactors. There is plenty of enriched uranium available for peaceful purposes. Iran does not necessarily need this capability to have functioning reactors for their energy needs. I think we should all realize that Iran does wish to develop the capabilities for making a nuclear weapon. I hope that if they would achieve this capability it would be as a detterent against the bombing of their country in the future by the US or Israel and not for ooffensive purposes, but that is my hope, not assurance. I don't agree with Jim's warmongering. I am deeply repulsed by it. That said, I do believe that this is one of the most reasonable responses I have ever seen written by him if the decision has truly been made that the powers that be are going to bomb Iran.
    I do hope and pray that the Iranian government comes to its senses and decides that it should stop being a state sponsor of terrorism, and stops its development of nuclear weapons. Because that is what it is, and that is what they are trying to develop. n the likely event that they do not, I hope and pray that as many Iranians as possible are spared death and injury because I know that many of them do not support their government. In the event of war, as I am an American I hope and pray that none of our military are killed or injured. I also hope and pray that enough of the enemy, its military and infrastructure are killed and destroyed to bring us a quick victory.


    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:42:07 AM EST
    Direct from (un)Intelligence sources, too secret to reveal, PPJ has the story:
    Because dear edger, it is a shield for their no longer secret attempt to produce a nuclear bomb.
    All those Iraq WMD's and Saddam's links to al Quaida are also from the same superduper sources. Once again we must launch a preemptive attack to boost poll results and secure against Democrats winning a majority in Congress. The sky really is falling this time, Mr. Henney PPJ Penny tells us for the umpteenth time. When does it stop? When we rid the world of all the evil terrorists. In other words never, or, until we get these criminals out of office. The bedwetter approach is wearing thin.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:45:13 AM EST
    Peaches: I think we should all realize that Iran does wish to develop the capabilities for making a nuclear weapon. I hope that if they would achieve this capability it would be as a detterent against the bombing of their country in the future by the US or Israel and not for ooffensive purposes Israel, so far as is known, has somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 nuclear warheads, if not more, and the delivery systems needed to turn Iran into a uninhabitable radioactive slag heap in a matter of hours. When Iran acquires their first nuclear bomb, do you really think they will use it against Israel, or anyone else, except in defense? They may have a crazy leader for the time being, as the US does. But he is temporary. As bush is.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:53:55 AM EST
    Edgar,
    When Iran acquires their first nuclear bomb, do you really think they will use it against Israel, or anyone else, except in defense?
    No, but I have no assurances. My hope is always that everyone will choose peace.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:57:39 AM EST
    Israel, so far as is known, has somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 nuclear warheads, if not more, and the delivery systems needed to turn Iran into a uninhabitable radioactive slag heap in a matter of hours.
    Now edger don't you know the rules?:
    There's an elephant in the room. It is large and squatting, so it is hard to get around it. Yet we squeeze by with, "How are you?" and "I'm fine," and a thousand other forms of trivial chatter. We talk about the weather. We talk about work. We talk about everything else, except the elephant in the room.
    Terry Kettering

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:01:41 AM EST
    Me too, man. And also choose to not force others to retaliate... then claim and insult me with the assumption that I am a sucker and will believe that retaliation is something "We did nothing to invite" -- Bush...

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#65)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:01:42 AM EST
    Yes well the US has never had problems with any of their equipment (M-16). Say, how's the Osprey workin' for ya patriot boys? Well, just throw some more tax money at it and throw a few parties. That should fix it. Your Xenophobe is showing. And it looks like a Pe**s, only smaller.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#66)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:03:59 AM EST
    Nobody's answered the question of which they prefer, Iran with or Iran without, and if the latter how to get there. Because it's a stupid question.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:04:43 AM EST
    That last one was to Peaches. Good link, Squeaky! Thanks... I'm off to work. Everybody have a good day, and don't push anyone into attacking you back, ok? It'll make the day that much better for all. ;-)

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:05:39 AM EST
    Good answer, Che!

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:38:50 AM EST
    why do they rush to develop "nuclear power?"
    To sell more oil, their sole commidity. Eventually Iran will run out of oil, can you blame them for planning ahead for that eventuality? As crazy as the Iranian pres. seems, they are a sovereign nation with the inalienable right to nuclear research. To stop them by force makes us the agressor, and wrong.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Al on Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:47:49 AM EST
    Sky-Ho writes:
    Excellent question. I see the trolls cannot seem to answer it, hoping around like Mexican jumping beans.
    I answered Al's question and your trollish comment 57 minutes before you posted your comment. Perhaps the ego you referred to resides between your ears??
    No, Jim, you didn't answer my question. Sky Ho has it exactly right: You jumped around it. The closest you came to "as many Iranians as possible" are spared death and destruction, and only then because many of them oppose the regime. Of course, since your bombs cannot tell the political inclinations of their victims, and you have no control over how many people are killed, your "prayer" is self-serving nonsense. In reality, either you bomb and kill innocent people or you stay home and don't.

    Che. A stupid question? How does it not address reality and the choices open to us? Al. And if you stay home, you live with the results. Got any idea what those would be? I know, peace. Peace forevermore and flowing like a river. Or not. Your thoughts?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#72)
    by roy on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:03:56 AM EST
    Alarming news story of the day:
    The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms. The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests. But they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads.
    Two important caveats: anonymous sources, and this sort of thing has turned out to be a false alarm in the past.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#73)
    by Sailor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:10:34 AM EST
    roy, I would bet that story was planted by bushco as part of the screaming bedwetters offensive.

    Ah Roy, I'll take that bet. What if it's (gasp!) not a plant? What if (gasp!) Iran has been lying all along?

    Sailor. You may be right. The actual question is, what do we do if you're wrong?

    Jondee.... Effing warmongering scum Try and jump to conclusions a little quicker next time the news reports something half assed! DavidD.... Let's cut to the chase...You linked to it....Here is what the left really believs.. We Are the Nazi Hordes Squeaky... All those Iraq WMD's and Saddam's links to al Quaida are also from the same superduper sources. And they were correct! Edger... do you really think they will use it against Israel, or anyone else, except in defense? You are missing the bigger picture. What would stop them from giving it to a terrorist organization and claiming they had nothing to do with it?? Besides, they are "on the record" of wanting to destroy Isreal.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:36:07 AM EST
    Buy yourselves some plastic sheets and stay home quaking. That's probably all you can afford with the money you're making trying to sell your fear and your desire to continue causing these problems to anyone else... Obituaries

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    From Bird Brain
    You are missing the bigger picture. What would stop them from giving it to a terrorist organization and claiming they had nothing to do with it??
    Gosh, I wonder if that sort of thing has ever been done before? Could any government be so above international law to try such a thing?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    Monkey see monkey do. I see your point. edger is right. Bulk ordered plastic sheets from China.... you can start a new business.

    Oops. Time to change the theme: el Baradei has switched from saying Iran hasn't got the bomb to saying they have a perfect right to it. Any way to erase the foregoing lefty comments and replace them with, "and why the hell shouldn't they have a bomb?" remarks?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:52:07 AM EST
    Squeaky? we could give them some dry cleaners bags to play with...

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:12:14 AM EST
    edger-A bit dangerous, insurmountable fear and that sort of thing can lead to suffocation. You know, when they wrap too tight...We are not talking about the brightest bunch here..

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:18:23 AM EST
    B.B - Alright, darned warmongering scum. As I observed before, this "crisis" is the epitome of the proverbial self-fulfilling prophecy. There isnt a country on the planet that wouldnt look into detterence avenues in responce to the well publicized intentions of Bush's PNAC wisemen and women (who should all be put on a slow, leaky boat to Haiti IMO). A crack-brained idiot, (or, a diehard Bush supporter) whose been paying any attention at all could have seen this coming years ago. Like I said, self-fulfilling prophecy. Throw that "Blessed are the Peace Makers" right out the window. The new saviors are Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the other signatories.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    Squeaky - We are not talking about the brightest bunch here Oh yeah, right. I forgot. I have this tendency to give them the benefit of the doubt... but I'm working on that. ;-)

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#85)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    Edgar, I thought you were off to work?
    then claim and insult me with the assumption that I am a sucker and will believe that retaliation is something "We did nothing to invite"
    I couldn't agree more. As I have quoted here before. Michael Franti sings You can bomb the world to pieces but you can't bomb it into peace

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#86)
    by Sailor on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:31:49 AM EST
    All those Iraq WMD's and Saddam's links to al Quaida are also from the same superduper sources.
    And they were correct!
    Sheesh, not even bush claims that!

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:38:29 AM EST
    Peaches, I am at work. I just can't leave this thread alone... you know?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#88)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    Yeah, I know.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#89)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    You work in the Twin Cities?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:44:29 AM EST
    As a rogue and clearly out-of-control America (controlled by an insane would-be dictator, Bushco, with his Republican Guard) readies itself to attack yet again another sovereign country, and in this case, one THAT HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY LAWS OR TREATIES, I don't see much recognition from the war/fear-mongers here that this attack will clearly be made without cover of even sham U.N. resolutions. We will clearly be the aggressors in an illegal war, and you're PROUD of that? Millions more may die, especially if Bushco uses nukes, and you're PROUD of that? Such an attack could precipitate a conflagration that could leave the entire middle east radioactive for ten thousand years (including the oil you want), and you're PROUD of that? That the attack would occur without even the pretense of direct talks and diplomacy, you're PROUD of that? That countless children from the entire region will surely die in pursuit of oil, you're PROUD of that? Will you be just as PROUD when the Japanese and Chinese start dumping dollars because of all the havoc America has introduced to the world, causing the utter collapse of our economy, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates that will cause irreparable harm to America? Will you be so PROUD when the Russians re-target their nukes on America, and both the Russians and Chinese park submarines off our coast that can kill millions of Americans in minutes? Will you be so PROUD when these and many other countries decide they will no longer allow America to run amok in the world and preemptively strike any country, at will? How PROUD you will be when gas shoots to $8-10 a gallon the minute the shooting starts? PROUD indeed you will be when you learn that the Straits of Hormuz can be blockaded, preventing the shipment of oil! And while being so PROUD of our military might, you ARE aware that our armies are broken and we cannot possibly fight and win wars on three fronts without using nukes? Oh, my, how PROUD to be a nuclear aggressor distributing radioactive fallout on innocent European and Asian countries! They will surely be PROUD to be afflicted with illnesses and cancers for the next fifty years, and I'm sure they will be PROUD to retaliate and teach the United States THAT PRIDE GOETH BEFORE A FALL. My god, the sophomoric arguments of the war/fear-mongers in no way take into consideration the horrible consequences of starting another war of choice and aggression, and yet they are so PROUD of pursuing imperialism at any costs that they fail to consider that the true "costs" could easily be the forced end of America, formerly the greatest nation on earth. Now we are a Third-world banana republic - without the bananas. MAKES YOU PROUD, DON'T IT?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    Republican Guard. Im starting to think they're more like the Romanian Iron Guard.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#92)
    by Al on Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    Aubrey:
    Al. And if you stay home, you live with the results. Got any idea what those would be?
    Exactly the same as if the bombers had stayed at home instead of invading Iraq, and Saddam had unleashed his non-existent weapons of mass destruction. (Well, not exactly the same. Much better actually since a lot of death and destruction would have been prevented). As Bush said, "Fool me once, something something, fool me twice, something something something else".

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:06:44 AM EST
    Bill Arnet-
    ...that this attack will clearly be made without cover of even sham U.N. resolutions.
    What resolutions. We attacked Iraq against the good judgment of the UN. They said to continue inspections, we said f*ck you.
    How PROUD you will be when gas shoots to $8-10 a gallon the minute the shooting starts? PROUD indeed you will be when you learn that the Straits of Hormuz can be blockaded, preventing the shipment of oil!
    I have a sneaky feeling that the whole point of the plan is to bomb the oil fields themselves. The nukes may be a red herring. That is their source of Iran's $$$. Cut off the oil and they starve. Many here will get very rich on oil futures with $200./barrel oil. In the futures market timing and inside knowledge is everything. These guys seem stupid if you think they working for Americans, as all they do is f*ck up. But if you shift the glass and see that they are in it for their own enrichment all of a sudden they seem quite bright, evil geniuses almost.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#94)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    Peaches, I'm out on the west coast where I can look out the window at mountains and ocean. Where there are people of every kind of race, creed, color, belief system, and orientation that you can think of all around me, who all get along unbelieveably well, BTW.

    Al. We're looking more than a month down the road, here, or we ought to be. If we hadn't gone into Iraq--see Duelfer and Kay--the programs and capabilities SH had in place would have been reconstituted. Once the sanctions ended, which was on the UN's schedule, or before, or if they didn't--see the bribery and corruption and kickbacks and all the spare cash SH had even under UN "sanctions". Your point is that, I suppose, if we don't attack, Iran will either not get the bomb, or will get the bomb and that will be okay. Which is it? It was two whole years between Hitler finding out he could bluff--he didn't have the combat power to actually win--France and Britain when he remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936 and his successful grab for Czechoslovakia. BTW, a recent History Channel doc tells us that Hitler's blitzkriegs in 39-41 used very light, training tanks which was all the German tanks he had, and would have not been successful if he hadn't had access to the Czechs' tanks and the Skoda works. The Czechs' tanks were bigger, more heavily armed and armored. He got them for free. Point is, don't restrict your view to the next week. Time to tell me that there is no possible connection between Munich and al Q. Try to hide the history lesson's possible application. Tell me that, um, there can't be anything to learn here because, um, Hitler didn't have a beard like the mullahs sport. Or he had a dog like they don't. Or something.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:20:45 AM EST
    I've got another history lessons possible application: Hitler wouldnt have gone anywhere without guys like, um, you.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    Jondee, like some other wacos we all know and love, there is always a supply of new ones that aren't worth responding to. They're made on an old hand cranked mimeograph machine somewhere deep in the forest in northern Idaho, I think.

    I have a sneaky feeling that the whole point of the plan is to bomb the oil fields themselves. The nukes may be a red herring. That is their source of Iran's $$$. Cut off the oil and they starve.
    Squeaky. I think China might take exception to that. I could argue that bushco have this in consideration. But I wouldn't bet the farm on any point with this lot.

    The point in not allowing an Iranian nuke is to support the non-proliferation regime. Obviously it's not perfect, but no one can doubt the fewer nuclear countries, the better off everyone else in the world is. Moreover, a nuclear Iran would probably precipitate a new "nuclear arms race" in a region that is already highly unstable. None of the options here are easy, but the potential (and likely) consequences should be fully considered with an open mind. I do find it a little comedic that the formerly ardent "no nukes" crowd is suddenly accepting of Iran joining the nuclear club. Partisan politics much?

    Jondee. Good one. Right on point. Logical. Historically accurate. Got any more?

    Bill Arnett. Sir, yet again you shame us. And of me, a pathetic ditty on one of your points. Down the Straits of Hormuz, Oil tankers they do cruise. Should one get a rocket and sink, Then problems me do think. Dub, are you still on the booze?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    oscar wilde-
    But I wouldn't bet the farm on any point with this lot.
    Well yeah...sad but true. Pissing off China would help these losers. All of a sudden they would be victims. Popular support would gush against the evil commies. The excuse: those sneaky Iranians hid the nukes under the oilfields.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#103)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    Edgar, I saw that you linked to our local alternative paper for the obituary of GWB. I thought you might be from these parts. I look out the window at the Mississippi river from a downtown office building. I'll take the flatlands Mosquitos and the cold over mountains, oceans, earthquakes and landslides anyday. Happily, time passes quite peacably in this part of the country also. At least, as long as I not caught in traffic. Automobiles, like guns and ammo, seems to bring out the worst in people.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    Richard - I know you're not a big nuance guy - which isnt to say you're dumb - but, have you ever studied anything about the authoritarian personality? You show alot of the cardinal signs.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:56:47 AM EST
    Peaches, I read voraciously. Anything that makes sense. From wherever. And much that doesn't. I guess I'm an information junkie, and very interested in what makes people tick, you know? I'm from the planet.

    Jondee. Man, you hit a memory there. When I was studying psychology, I wanted to read Adorno and the U didn't have it. The Detroit Public Library system did, but never had it in. That and Phillips' "The Thai Peasant Personality", which I missed for a paper because of USPS strike, remain burrs under my saddle. I do know enough about the authoritarian personality to know that favoring strong and pro-active foreign policy is not an indicator. The authoritarian personality is far more concerned with running other people's lives. You know. Food Nazis. Buckle up. Helmet laws. He might be said to resemble Puritans, about whom it has been remarked, "Every time their belly rumbled, they thought they heard the voice of God." Which is to say, any whim needs to be a law, and ordained by God. Not me. Actually, it's guys like my father who stopped Hitler. It's guys like you and Chamberlain who gave him his running start. If I were not awed by the example, I'd like to think I'm like my father. I certainly would have fought to stop Hitler.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    Peaches-
    Automobiles, like guns and ammo, seems to bring out the worst in people.
    I spent some time in Minneapolis. Everyone was unbelievably nice there as long as they were not in a car. Once in the car it was another world. I have never seen such road rage anywhere in the world as there. Pent up frustration from having to be so nice all the time, maybe? I did not get it.

    Statesman. A man who is a leader in national or international affairs. Male political leader regarded as a disinterested promoter of the public good. A man who is a respected leader in a given field. A mature statesman of American letters. Statemanship. Wisdom in the management of public affairs. ? Source Princetown U

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#109)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    Squeeak,
    Everyone was unbelievably nice there as long as they were not in a car. Once in the car it was another world. I have never seen such road rage anywhere in the world as there. Pent up frustration from having to be so nice all the time, maybe? I did not get it.
    I don't know. Its a german/swedish thing I guess. I agree with you about drivers in MN. I cannot explain it. Maybe its the weather. Perhaps the short days in winter. I am not sure about it being specific to Minnesota, but Minnesota nice is very real. It is not a genuine nice. It is a smile that says don't bother me right now. Again, it must be a german/swede thing-i guess.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    Lets, um, ignore the niggly little details like the fact that no one had hundreds of nukes in 1939; Hitler was in command of the most formidable war machine in the history of the world; Germany wasnt ringed by a group of countries and alliances that could bomb it into the stone age or convert it into a third world tourist attraction in a few short hours if it threatened to upset the balance of power too much; skip over the fact that most of Europe was still smarting from the most horrific war and economic depression in history, and go straight to the emotionally resonant (if intellectually lacking), Hitler = "The Mad Mullahs", Neville Chamberlain = All Bleeding Heart Liberals. So logical, so on point.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:01:50 PM EST
    As if invading countries had nothing to do with "running other peoples lives". The ones that are left alive that is.

    This thread reminds me of last years semi-daily, bushhiltlermcchimpyhaliburtoncheny-the -draft-is-coming-next-week threads. I bet someone can fit a draft post in somewhere.

    Jondee. Let's ignore the fact that Hitler knew he couldn't beat the French in 1936 and that his generals had a plan to, if the French resisted, to go to Berlin and can Hitler. Let's ignore the fact that Hitler didn't have the world's best war machine in terms of material. He had the best planners. The Russians had more than he did, and with the French and Brits together, he had less vis-a-vis the potential enemies than the Germans had in 1914. What he was was nuts with a good tactical sense and a deficient strategic sense. He was also surrounded by people who wanted to give him just one more concession so they'd feel safe for another six months or a year. The world was smarting, but so was Germany. They lost, remember? They managed to pull it together long enough to create another horror although the objective cards were stacked against them. The West retreated and retreated and cried pacifism so long that he figured he'd be able to get the whole enchilada. That he couldn't is nice. That he almost did, because of the pre-war character of his potential victims is not nice. The price of fixing it was quite high. Better to have fixed it in 1936. It is legitimate to discuss whether there is some, a lot, or no similarity to the present, whether the two situations are close enough that one can inform us about the other. It is criminally stupid to insist that there is no connection and that the discussion is unnecessary. It is also stupid to insist that somebody else's reality should be what we think it should be. Which is, coincidentally, what it would be most useful for us that it be. The Argentine junta figured they could beat the Brits. They were wrong, but the price of finding it out was high. Before the war, it would have been foolish to suggest that, on objective--"our reality"--terms the Argies would never do such a crazy thing. It would have been foolish, and quite natural, and, as it turned out, wrong. I'm interested not in what you think of Iran's situation. I'm interested in what the mullahs think. I'm not interested in your opinion of what they think or surely must think. You have no way of knowing and what you seem to think is quite self-serving. That's an ominous combination. I didn't much like the Cold War's nuclear stand-off, but I did take some comfort in knowing the Politburo was officially on record as not believing in an afterlife. The mullahs?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    And we wonder why we have problems with "education" (despite havin an edgication preznit) in the U.S.

    Squeaky.... From Bird Brain Ah..there it is...the old liberal name calling as soon as they are at a loss for words. Could any government be so above international law to try such a thing? Please show me where the US did that ... & then denied it. And, where a nuclear weapon (we gave someone) was detonated! Feel free to call me more names when you come up empty! Jondee... B.B - Alright, darned warmongering scum Another one! Sorry, but wanting to protect my country from people that want to kill both of us doesn't make me a warmongering scum". There isnt a country on the planet that wouldnt look into detterence avenues in responce to the well publicized intentions of Bush's PNAC wisemen and women And just what is that intention Jondee? How about the intentions of Iran? Are you paying half as much attention to that? Richard A.... Hitler wouldnt have gone anywhere without guys like, um, you. Yeah...take that! Hitler is all your fault. If it wasn't for guys like you...Hilter would have never tried to rule the world. Jondee..I beleive you've gone off the deep end.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    Please show me where the US did that ... & then denied it.
    Sorry BB but that is classified information and will be until we get a regime change. '06, and '08 will be years where unprecedented amounts of classified information is declassified and made public.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:49:37 PM EST
    Oh, and BB, sorry for the name calling. I thought it funny at the time. It was not out of anger nor, as you can see, loss of words. I was making fun of what I thought was a silly comment, sorry. 'What if's' are OK for contingency planning, but to base a preemptive war on a 'what if' is insanely arrogant and poor judgment.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#118)
    by Peaches on Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    Edgar, If you don't mind me asking? You seem like an open minded guy and a man of peace. How does someone who says this...
    Peaches, I read voraciously. Anything that makes sense. From wherever. And much that doesn't. I guess I'm an information junkie, and very interested in what makes people tick, you know? I'm from the planet
    and this:
    Where there are people of every kind of race, creed, color, belief system, and orientation that you can think of all around me, who all get along unbelieveably well, BTW.
    come to say this:
    Posted by edger May 11, 2006 08:54 PM I'll second that, Jondee...
    concerning this
    Any God worth his salt would "guide them" on a freedom mission to a certain vegetable stand in Colorado first. Right now thats my fondest wish.
    about our beloved ppj. I shouldn't need to tell you that ppj has not given the order for any bombing in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. I detests his views. He supports people who I think make immoral and illegal decisions. But, how can you wish for this? Forgive the lecture. I just find this is despicable. I expect this from narius and some others. I don't think I've ever heard ppj suggest we should bomb Americans. It might not surprise me too much given the right circumstance. But, how could you wish for such a thing? Jondee?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    Peaches - Sorry you find it despicable. What adjectives would you use to describe those that cheerlead the mass slaughter and subjugation of thousands of people? Just think of my "wish for Jim" , born of indignation at the relentless warmongering rhetoric and covering for those that benefit from it, as one long, unwieldy adjective. I make no apologies.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:31:35 PM EST
    Btw peaches, I dont literally wish Jim would have an unfortunate, rural road side encounter with U.S fighter planes; I want him to open his heart and mind a little more and realize that "violence begets violence", we cant always predict the future from the past, and that we (me,him,you) dont know the incredible good that we can accomplish and contribute in this possible of all best worlds.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    And yeah, Im a hypocrite: so what else is new?

    I am the man, the well-fed man In charge of the terrible knob. These internets is a wonder. The last time I sang this the craic was ninety in good old Ireland. It's a riot, go have a read.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#123)
    by Al on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    If we hadn't gone into Iraq--see Duelfer and Kay--the programs and capabilities SH had in place would have been reconstituted.
    Aubrey, as we all know very well, Kay was absolutely convinced he was going to find the weapons of mass destruction that everyone else had not, and shocked everyone by coming back and announcing that he had found nothing and it was all a humongous intelligence screw-up. Duelfer (I had to look him up) apparently was sent to continue looking, so the Administration could say it wasn't over yet. He came back with this report, which I would urge everyone to read. Among his "key findings", which are essentially that Saddam Hussein had every intention of developing Weapons of Mass Destruction, please note the following finding:
    The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam, and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
    OK, so if there's nothing in writing, how does he know any of this? Ah, for this, we have to read the "Notes on methodological approach":
    Interview with former Regime officials who were active in Iraq's governing, economic, security, and intelligence structures were critical to ISG's assessment of the former Regime's WMD strategy.
    So their information comes from prisoners' recollections of having talked to Saddam. Please read the methodology for yourselves, it's priceless. Check out the bit where they gave the detainees "homework" (this is the word used in the report), where they had to write down what they remembered of Saddam's instructions. Then, when you're done laughing, please remember this was the rationale given for the wanton death and destruction visited upon the Iraqi people during the occupation of their country, and please consider that this is the rationale being presented for doing the same thing to the Iranians. Really, Aubrey, do you people think we're complete idiots?

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#124)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    Peaches - Because I take what Jondee said there as tongue in cheek satire, and as a way of him saying "you get what you give", or "you will experience what you wish for others", or "as ye sow, so shall ye reap", or "the love you take is equal to the love you make". You know what I mean, I think - It's been said thousands of ways, over thousands of years. I read what Jondee says in the context of the general tone of everything else he says. He most always wishes well for people, but is not afraid to offend those who are most offensive, with turnabout. People who respect others earn and receive respect, from respectable people. People who don't, don't. For whatever it's worth to him, Jondee has my respect. So do you. So do most here. Some here do not, and those I no longer respond to.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:23:42 PM EST
    It's edger btw, not edgar. ;-)

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:36:59 PM EST
    Thanks Edger. Im trying like Hell to live up to that. With the occasional lapse. Peace.

    There is nothing more depraved than a man in the throes of an Edger binge...

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#128)
    by Edger on Fri May 12, 2006 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    Raulduke - Don't say anything about the bats, man. They'll notice them soon enough ;-)

    "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man" Karl Rove

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Sat May 13, 2006 at 12:22:45 AM EST
    I still dont see any wingers maning up and admiting that the Iran-is-next meme has been on the table and making the rounds for a much longer time than any more recent indications that Iran might be considering attempting to acquire a deterent. As if there were no connection between the two things. Iran just wants one so they can "wipe Israel off the map" (after first magically rendering all Israels nukes inoperable.) Uh huh. One things for sure, the neocons and the PNAC certainly have some pious disciples here.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#131)
    by Edger on Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:32:03 AM EST
    The White House has released a transcript of a letter sent from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to United States President George W. Bush in an attempt to ease tensions between the two countries. The letter appears below: Dear Son of Satan:
    ...why not come for a visit? We could have some fun; you know... cruise chicks, look into each others souls, that sort of thing. Look how well that worked for you and Putin.
    To be honest, I have never understood why our two countries hate one another so much, you Worm of Hell. Unlike many Iranians, I never believed that your attacking and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, which had the no doubt unintended result of placing large portions of your army in two countries that surround my own as anything other than a coincidence. After all, what could you possibly gain by invading another oil rich country in the Middle East? It makes no sense.
    Can't we be friends George? I can call you George, can't I, you treacherous snake? ... All Love From Your New Pal, Mahmoud (Pinkie) Ahmadinejad PS... You're right. Laura is pretty hot.


    edger. another site worthy of a good dose of looking at, cheers.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#133)
    by Peaches on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:55:58 AM EST
    Edger and Jondee, Shortly after Kerry lost the election in 2004, I went on one of my drinking binges. I came home from the bar one night and read some of Jim's comments and invited him out to one of my neighborhood cornerspots so I could deliver him a fine punch in the nose. I was embarassed upon reading what I wrote later and started cutting back on the beers and going to the bar sulking over the deteriorating of America and bagan putting my life back on track, once again, in a new direction. I also took a long needed break from blogs and the internet. I understand the anger one can feel when reading people's opinions that differ from our own. I sometimes feel it myself, still. Jim deserves to be antagonized for the things he says here. At times, he may not even be deserving of your respect. However, I would caution about using tongue-in-cheeks and jokes that aim at dehumanizing him. Jim is only a man. My view is that he is a lonely old man - lonely like many of us are who frequent the internet. But, he is human. If I met him in his garden, we could talk about his cabbage and tomatoes and never know each other's opinion on Iraq. I might find him an endearing and knowledgeable old man. We are still all Americans despite our differences. The easier it becomes to hate and detest our fellow Americans enough to dehumanize them and wish them ill-will, the closer we come to the day the split between conservatives and liberals, Red-states and blue states, Christians vs seculars, City's vs rurals, leads to civil war and unnecassary violence. All we need are open discussions. Jim's opinion can never be changed. But, he is talking and many people have a chance to see his opinions for what they are. We also have a chance to debate him and demonstrate the follies of his beliefs. That is all you can ask for--even wish for. An opportunity to have a dialogue in order to persuade others of the more pragmatic beliefs, so we can advance toward a better world in the future.

    "Life is monkey see, and monkey do...thats all it is, Peaches; Thats all it is, Peaches". Michael Franks

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    Peaches- Have you switched from beer to ecstasy?

    Peaches. I think you're lovely. And of ourselves, our excessive time on the net is perhaps something we do not wish to analize too deeply. I can't give you some real ones, will you make do with these? ooooxxxx Oscar.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#137)
    by Peaches on Mon May 15, 2006 at 09:12:04 AM EST
    Peaches- Have you switched from beer to ecstasy?
    I still love beer. I just try and drink less of it and avoid going to the pub (I never liked crowds much anyways). I started drinking Yarba Mate out of a gourd with a bombilla. That's as close as I have come to ecstasy.

    Re: Report: Aircraft Carriers Headed towards Iran, (none / 0) (#138)
    by Peaches on Mon May 15, 2006 at 09:15:08 AM EST
    ooooxxxx Oscar.
    Right back at ya, Oscar.

    Peaches, Yikes! Yerba Mate is the very potion that changed me from a reasonably passive, conservative-tending fresh young college student, to going straight to work for Jerry Brown in Ann Arbor during the '92 Michigan Primary (which Jerry won, by God...) After that it was craft ales, the MME, and a short-lived stint in Atlanta. Stoked by a slow, moldering fire of Excellent weed, we hunkered down in Little 5 Points plotting the overthrow of the community radio station which was planning to take on a chain of SuperCuts franchises as "community partners". "Sure, then what...Walmart"??!!!" Ah, Heady days indeed. Point being, i think many of us here can be forgiven our passions, be they drink, women, or liberal politics. Nothing exceeds like excess, I always say.

    by the way, many fine community radio stations still may exist in your environs, you stout fellows of the left, and web-streaming brings me the finest in locally produced political analyses by many fine minds, from double-tall liberalism to full-goose loony. right now i'm streaming WCBN FM 88.3 out of Ann Arbor. Support community radio!!!

    oh, the carriers? why should i worry about them when there are MEXICANS AT MY DOORSTEP WAITING TO STEAL MY WAY OF LIFE FROM MY VERY POCKETS!! we'd all better watch our president tonight for instructions what to do next!!!

    That's as close as I have come to ecstasy.
    Booze bad. XTC I wish to invoke the fifth. But as an opinion only, it's not called what it is for nutin.