U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

[DrYB/C]

1. U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9817

2. Kuwait on alert for war in Persian Gulf?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020101

I think we will see war.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

I read just this past weekend that the US portion of the fleet sailing to the gulf is the exact same configuration of ships as have stood standard duty there for years. Articles combine the approaching number of replacement ships with the standing fleet on site and call it a massive military build up, but this is inaccurate. If it's a rotation, the US component arriving and that departing actually remain "substantially unchanged".

Certainly open conflict in the gulf with Iran is possible, but we've been treated to breathless opining about the imminent breakout of war with Iran due to US fleet movements for years now, and I was under the impressio that the approaching ships are a rotation of the existing ones, and this has occurred before? They "linger" the replaced fleet in the gulf to double up the aggregate number of ships for a few days or weeks, as a convenient way to cast a slightly "longer shadow", but until further clear indication, it remains a rotation, as have been the previous ones.

[Spartacus]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

It won't happen, so don't worry about it.

And since it won't happen, no need to write congress or media or do anything about it.

After all, liberty has no price - liberty is free - certainly it does not demand even a moment's vigilance - forget that other guy who said liberty requires eternal vigilance- obviously a complete buffoon, a trouble maker, and someone who complained about things that would not happen anyway.

1. U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9817

2. Kuwait on alert for war in Persian Gulf?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020101

I think we will see war.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

Spartacus -

Your irony is broad enough that even those devoid of humor will readily grasp the point here. (hint, the best irony or humor is not quite that labored, presuming if anything that one's readers are perfectly able to take the hint, rather than get hit over the head with the point). Just to reassure you, I'm also concerned and vigilant. What you probably shouldn't do is so complacently conclude that anyone suggesting that this could really be a sector rotation must be some sort of sclerotic "reactionary". I'm no apologist for a military solution against Iran. I have a keen sense of why it's so morally reprehensible to be a "chicken hawk", or an "armchair general", and steer well clear of that.

I am against preemptive war, but unfortunately students of Von Clausewitz and even the mythical Sun Tzu would probably conclude I am an idiot for that stance. No matter, I'm still against it, as it by definition has not "exhausted all avenues for peace". That must make me against the Iraq war at it's outset, and if pressed, for logical consistency I'd have to conclude that too.

When you see a double amputee come home, or read about families of civilians caught in the crossfire as "collateral damage", I'm no less keenly upset by this than you. What is perhaps worth taking a second look at here instead, is why you need to regard those with whom you find yourself not in perfect alignment on the US / Iran business as somehow less intelligent, or less finely tuned ethically than you presume yourself to be. I take that is the point of your (labored) irony above.

I don't disagree with your disapproval of the US entanglement. I do take exception to the conceits which tend to slide in, wherein one becomes seduced by the conclusion that anyone who does not share all of one's views must somehow be more shortsighted, or less intelligent, or less principled than oneself. That sort of thinking actually tends to denote the less intelligent outlook. The more intelligent outlook maintains an ability to discuss the point with a very eclectic mix of other political views. That's my ideal, but I see you struggle at it. A mere mention that an approaching fleet of ships may have the same purpose as the fleets that were sent there previously has you up in arms, maybe seeing "reactionaries" piling out of the ethical woodwork like termites.

It does really not have to be that polarized as polarization is probably the opposite of insight. I welcome any comment and offer only respect, although it would be wonderful if the political cartooning might be dispensed with.

[Sapiens]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

I think we will see war.

Don't fall for the bear and eagle theatrics, and that's what it is, even if the little people are expensed. It is the dragon who needs to worry, nothing has changed since the opium wars, it is still the same game and it is always about race.

[Judas]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

I have a keen sense of why it's so morally reprehensible to be a "chicken hawk", or an "armchair general", and steer well clear of that.

You shouldn't. The American system of governance and our basic freedoms depend upon the "armchair general". Farmers and housewives and regular folks are supposed to be the ones who decide when and if we go to war. Your elderly mother has just as much a right to her voice about government decisions as the soldier next door, and her voice isn't "morally reprehensible". If only the military is making the decisions we're screwed.

By the way, I was an Infantryman, but I see no real reason to go to war. Hell, we've had few legitimate reasons for wars or other "entangling alliances" for decades.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

I've read a lot of your comments with appreciation Judas - they invariably seem to have a lot of depth. Point very well taken, and your sentiment for the Republic is commendable, to my view. Aye aye! [ and what's in the hellishly boiling technicolor coffee mug? :confused: ]

You shouldn't. The American system of governance and our basic freedoms depend upon the "armchair general". Farmers and housewives and regular folks are supposed to be the ones who decide when and if we go to war. Your elderly mother has just as much a right to her voice about government decisions as the soldier next door, and her voice isn't "morally reprehensible". If only the military is making the decisions we're screwed.

By the way, I was an Infantryman, but I see no real reason to go to war. Hell, we've had few legitimate reasons for wars or other "entangling alliances" for decades.

[Judas]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

... what's in the hellishly boiling technicolor coffee mug?

It's a personal symbol/logo I've used for years, and was even the logo of my tiny game company years ago. I'm quite a fan of H.P. Lovecraft, punk rock, and coffee.

[ASH]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

Don't fall for the bear and eagle theatrics, and that's what it is, even if the little people are expensed. It is the dragon who needs to worry, nothing has changed since the opium wars, it is still the same game and it is always about race.

I would caution you against single-variable theories of most anything, but especially history. Oddly, single-variable theories seem especially attractive to both tails of the bell curve. For the intelligent, they tickle an otherwise useful intellectual reflex -- the lightbulb that comes on when a unifying connection is made amongst many disperate facts. They also appeal to the instinctive urges of the physical scientist, who seeks to describe as many phenomena as possible with the smallest number of general rules. The enthusiasm and intellectual gratification one experiences when making such a connection can blind one to contrary evidence or the limitations of the theory, and often leads to confirmation bias. There are plenty of valid connections to be made, and a number of general principles that are useful in the analysis of history, but it is asking too much to identify a single root cause that applies to every case.

At the risk of being conventional, I would suggest to you that the Opium Wars were fought because the British Empire had nothing else to sell the Chinese in exchange for tea. (Or, more exactly, there was inadequate Chinese demand for any other British trade good that could be sold at prices enabling the British to pay what they wanted for tea.) It's not that race didn't enter into it, but race is not what the entire game was about.

[ASH]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

I read just this past weekend that the US portion of the fleet sailing to the gulf is the exact same configuration of ships as have stood standard duty there for years...

Lukester... you really don't deserve the moniker "mad" anything. You think more clearly than most who grace the internet with their foreign policy opinions.

Mind you, I'm not dismissive of the possibility that Iran may be attacked (nor do I take you to be). However, in my opinion, it is the lack of traction on the diplomatic front (i.e. Iran failing to accept the latest round of enticements) which is the better predictor of military action.

The way I see it, for the foreseeable future, there is going to be a fleet in that area which is prepared to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to oil shipping in the event of a surprise Israeli or American aerial attack on Iranian nuclear sites. That has been true for quite some time already, and it will continue to be true until either the strike occurs, or the dispute is resolved diplomatically. If routine fleet rotations temporarily increase the number of ships in the region, then yes -- I would expect the Americans to time any strike to coincide with that temporary enhancement. However, although the likelihood of a strike is higher during a rotation, it is probably not uniquely so during this particular rotation.

[Guest]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

Thanks for your generous comment ASH. Now if you could just take this lobby up with that nasty FRED character maybe I could get rid of this dang silly name he pasted on me. It's rattling around behind me like a tin can on a string. :mad: ;)

Lukester... you really don't deserve the moniker "mad" anything. You think more clearly than most who grace the internet with their foreign policy opinions.

Mind you, I'm not dismissive of the possibility that Iran may be attacked (nor do I take you to be). However, in my opinion, it is the lack of traction on the diplomatic front (i.e. Iran failing to accept the latest round of enticements) which is the better predictor of military action.

The way I see it, for the foreseeable future, there is going to be a fleet in that area which is prepared to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to oil shipping in the event of a surprise Israeli or American aerial attack on Iranian nuclear sites. That has been true for quite some time already, and it will continue to be true until either the strike occurs, or the dispute is resolved diplomatically. If routine fleet rotations temporarily increase the number of ships in the region, then yes -- I would expect the Americans to time any strike to coincide with that temporary enhancement. However, although the likelihood of a strike is higher during a rotation, it is probably not uniquely so during this particular rotation.

[touchring]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

The real threat to world peace is not iran or iraq or north korea. Iran and iraq will be at most regional wars.

World Wars had always started in Europe and i see Russia as the biggest threat to world peace. It is better to solve the Iranian problem once and for all, bring down the price of oil and reduce Russian oil revenue.

[Olduvai]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

The enthusiasm and intellectual gratification one experiences when making such a connection can blind one to contrary evidence or the limitations of the theory, and often leads to confirmation bias. There are plenty of valid connections to be made, and a number of general principles that are useful in the analysis of history, but it is asking too much to identify a single root cause that applies to every case.

On the risk of making the mistake mentioned above I can't stop wondering whether Putin and Bush made a deal of some sorts. The reaction of Bush towards the Russian invasion of a democratic country applying Nato membership is very mild to say the least. Bush condemns the move but until now only sends humanitarian aid and applies no military pressure.

Could it be that Georgia is being sacrificed in exchange for non Russian intervention when attacking Iran ?

[Olduvai]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

The real threat to world peace is not iran or iraq or north korea. Iran and iraq will be at most regional wars.

World Wars had always started in Europe and i see Russia as the biggest threat to world peace. It is better to solve the Iranian problem once and for all, bring down the price of oil and reduce Russian oil revenue.

This won't nescesarilly mean that a next "big"war can only start in Europe. Any regional conflict can grow into a big one when 2 big powers (Nato, Russia, China) are on opposing sides.
Resolving the Iranioan problem once and for all will be very difficult as conventional bombing will only slow Iran down and a ground war will be extremely costly considering the terrain in which it has to be fought.
Nuking them will not be an option. Perhaps Putin and bush have made a deal exchanging Georgia for non-intervention in Iran. But I don't think a nuclear aspekt was part of this agreement (if they made any).

[touchring]

Re: U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran?

This won't nescesarilly mean that a next "big"war can only start in Europe. Any regional conflict can grow into a big one when 2 big powers (Nato, Russia, China) are on opposing sides.

Well, almost all the World wars and major wars started in Europe.

Wars are usually about territories and people. What will China want territory with blond people in Siberia for?

On the other hand, the Georgians don't look too much different from the Russians. Wasn't Stalin from Georgia? Many Germans also don't look too different from the Dutch.