Obama: No Rush On Iran….

In other words, plans quickly being put into place.    You don’t say “no rush” unless you are rushing.   We know a rapid response naval “mother ship” is being retrofitted for special forces use in the Strait of Hormuz and we just found out a third, yes third, carrier group is headed to the gulf.  Probably the USS George HW Bush out of Virginia which pushed out two weeks ago.   This is unprecendented.   We have never before had 3 complete carrier groups in one region simultaneously.  

USS Abraham Lincoln had already entered the Persian Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz on Jan 22. She is escorted by a guided missile cruiser and two destroyers (USN), one British and one French warships.  Meanwhile, another US Navy’s carrier strike carrier group headed by USS Carl Vinson is stationed eastward the Strait of Hormuz, in northern part of the Arabian Sea washing southwest coast of Iran.

At present, the US has 15,000-men force deployed in Kuwait, expeditionary marine battalion, and amphibious landing group.

(The Hill) — The White House won’t be rushing to make a decision on Iran’s nuclear program, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

While Carney would not respond directly to questions about whether President Obama would have to decide within a year whether to use military force against Iran to stop it from obtaining nuclear weapons, he did say Obama’s policy is “clear.” [...]

Asked whether Panetta’s view puts a timetable on Obama, Carney said: “It doesn’t change our strategy, which is to continue to put pressure, continue to isolate, continue to make clear to Iran what its options are.”

Obama has said the United States wants to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran diplomatically. The United States and European Union have both imposed economic sanctions against Iran’s oil exports, prompting Iran to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil passageway in the Persian Gulf.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Egypt & Libya, Egypt & Libya Part 2, Obama re-election, Predictions. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Obama: No Rush On Iran….

  1. barnslayer says:

    Of course “no rush on Iran”. Don’t want to play that card too early for the elections.You could always re-invade Bosnia Il Douche.

    Like

  2. cjmartel says:

    Having served four years in the Navy, I can tell you right now that putting that much firepower in one area is bad, real bad. First, when you have that many loaded guns one of them could go off accidentally, second, you have just given our enemies a big fat juicy target for a nuke, yeah a nuke would take out all three carrier groups and we’d be sitting there with our thumbs up our asses!!
    More importantly, what the hell is the administration doing? Do they really think the Russians and the Chinese are going to sit still for this shit? What would the US do if the Chinese sent three carriers groups to Brazil or Europe, they would attack that’s what! These idiots could start a major war by stockpiling that much firepower, all that muscle says one thing, we’re going to kick your ass!
    The election can’t get here soon enough!

    Like

    • zmalfoy says:

      Yeah. . . It really does smack of provocation. I mean, I think the current Iranian regime is slimy and evil as Hell (like, literally) . . . And I do think they need to be shown forceful opposition. But this isn’t foreceful opposition– it’s clear and blatant baiting.

      I’m no Naval expert, but if I wanted those ships in that region, on call in case of sudden need, there are better, less. . . less “Double-dog-dare-ya!” ways of doing so. . . perhaps our Treehouse Naval Warfare Experts may enlighten me?

      Like

      • cjmartel says:

        Hey Z,

        I’m no expert, but I am a student of history. Whenever one country assembles large amounts of military hardware on or near a border, you can pretty well bet the farm, they are going to attack. One of the lessons learned from Pearl Harbor, and obviously forgotten in this case, you don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Those carrier groups can be well out of sight and still be effective, what the US is doing is saber rattling. For the past twenty or so years the US has engaged in a LOT of saber rattling, usually against countries that could never stand up to us. This time it is a little different, the Russians as well as the Chinese are telling us to back off, they are going to assist Iran, translation, we could inadvertantly start WWIII, and as Mr. Garrison would say, that’s not good, HMKAY?

        Like

        • zmalfoy says:

          Yeah. I was thinking “If I was President, and I wanted to rattle sabres in the general direction of Iran (as a way of annoucing support for, say, Israel), how would I do it?”

          Well, I might place one big ship in the Hormuz region. I might, possibly, put another of the coast of Kuwait/ Iraq in the PG, b/c “hey, they’re allies, we;re just hanging out with our friends!”–or one where the Gulf of Aden morphs into the Arabian Sea. I might also send two ships to the eastern half of the Mediterranean, of which one might be one of the hospital ships like the Comfort, the other of which migh possibly have long range capabilities (but who knows, I’d be keeping that intel as close as possible) . . .

          I guess, what I’m saying is. . .there are plenty of places for ships to be near at hand without being sitting ducks and obvious bomb-bait. . . and no, WWIII is not good. Not good at all.

          Like

    • Solaratov says:

      Actually, while those carrier groups will be in the same *region* they won’t be close enough to each other for one nuke to get’em all. It’s always been that way- even in WW2, when they didn’t have nukes to worry about. In order to attack all the carriers, your enemy has to divide his forces.
      And, China doesn’t have three carrier groups. They’ve only got one carrier (bought unfinished from Russia) and it’s still undergoing initial sea trials.
      And the only carrier Russia has is in such bad shape that it has to have a sea-going tug as part of its group. Just in case.

      Like

  3. Coyote says:

    If killing is business, business is about to get good.
    We’ve not even seen what evil is yet. Not. Even. Close.

    Time to hunker down yet?

    Like

  4. 3blackdogs says:

    Obama is the Commander in Chief ? He despises the Military ! Maybe this is a set up?

    Like

    • zmalfoy says:

      oh yeah, that’s pretty much what Branslayer and I were pondering– set-up big time. He’s putting these ships out there as bait, hoping they get blown up so he can have his excuse for war with a (betcha 3 silver pennies) nuclear power, thinking that’ll seal his relection as a “war-time president.” Or just to help bring about Nuclear Holocaust. I’m really, really thinking that there is a deliberate, extraordinarily evil plan being worked out here, of which Obama is the current Pawn-in-Chief. Some folks out there want this sh!t to go down, and they want to see everyone dead.

      Like

  5. Question for anyone who knows this kind of stuff. Does Iran have a cold winter? As in freezing weather or snow?

    Like

    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      The average low temperature in Iran in January is 30 degrees F. The average high is 46 F.

      Like

    • cjmartel says:

      If you factor in nuclear winter, temps are going to get very, very hot, then very. very cold. Downside of this is, Russia and China are both telling the US to back down, so we too could go from very, very hot to very, very cold as well. Let’s hope that someone in congress still has some testicular fortitude to tell this assclown in chief to knock it off.

      Like

      • Russia and China appear convieniently preoccupied right now. China with N-Korea, and Russia with Putin and election.

        Like

        • cjmartel says:

          Well Sundancer,

          Korea has WAY too many people, population control could be achieved by sending a whole boatload of N. Koreans to Iran, Russia and Putin, Putin is old school, he is looking at the unfolding situation in much the same way as Obama, nothing like a good ol’ fashioned war to take peoples minds off problems at home. Just a thought, nothing more.

          Like

    • cjmartel says:

      Shit! We all know what this means, more crackdowns on our civil liberties, in the interest of being safe, of course. Hey Coyote, it’s getting real close to time for hunkering down. Son of a bitch, this is all the excuse those assclowns in washingtoon need, elevated security risk, lockdown time!!

      Like

      • Coyote says:

        nah. I’m not hunkering down just yet.
        I’ll take out a few Iranians on U.S. soil first, quietly. For the fun of it, if I get the chance.
        They, most likely, won’t have too much to say they were here anyways.
        Can’t miss someone who “wasn’t here” to begin with.

        Like

        • LIB-VET says:

          What if the Iranies are good people, they just have a crazy leader?

          “Take(ing) out a few” Iranians is the same a killing someone, I guess. Its not all that glorious.

          Like

          • The majority of Iranies are good people. A little rough around the edges, but seemingly good people nonetheless. At least in the green movement.

            Like

          • stellap says:

            He said “on U.S. soil”. He’s talking about people who are willing to attack Americans on U.S. soil. See link above.

            Like

          • Coyote says:

            “What if…” You libertarians pop that one off every time.
            We are dealing in real time here, space cadet.
            If the Iranians are over here under bad pretense, Lib-Vet, I can’t call them “good people”. And, yes, I would take out a few bad Iranies for the fun of it.

            And twice on Sundays. I would have no compulsions about it.

            Like

    • Coyote says:

      Alright, this is what I think Obama’s attempting:
      - Antagonize the Iranians with our Navy.
      - Iranians antagonize us on our soil.
      - Our government contrives a plan to protect us from the Iranians who have infiltrated our country.

      It’s from this:
      - Starve one group.
      - Force them to target the other group.
      - Offer the marks out, for a price.

      Obama acquires two things:
      1) Conflict period Presidency
      2) Tighter death grip on our freedoms
      3) you can rattle off the rest that follow in your own head…

      HE knows what he is doing. He has to be stopped very soon. Very soon.

      Like

  6. James Clapper says Iran has not decided yet to build a bomb? This from the same doofus guy who thought the Muslim Brother hood was just a secular non ideological entity, dontchaknow…. ain’t ya feelin’ all reassured and stuff :( …..

    Like

  7. Solaratov says:

    Douglas Murray on a nuclear Iran……….

    Compare and contrast with our own Lames Clapper in the video above. :evil:

    Like

  8. LIB-VET says:

    This sucks. I mean, they have no nukes. Just like the WMD thing in Iraq. THE DO NOT HAVE THEM. Fear not.. All us kids will go fight the grown-ups’ war for yall.

    This is clearly a textbook pre-war positioning. And the media and politicians boost it. Obama, Bush, Romney.. They scare our citizens in fighting all these wars. Frankly, I am a little more scared cause I do not want to loose any my 12 guys I have led into combat once already. Of the 12, 8 are married. 7 couples have children. The oldest in my squad is 24. I do not want to loose them over this. My guys work for the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.

    No new wars unless attacked…

    Like

    • Too bad Lib-Vet. It is already in the works, count on it. Sorry to be blunt but Obama is going to attack Iran. He is going to attack Iran to win re-election. The only hope to avoid attacking Iran is if the Media, and all the polling shows he is resoundingly going to win re-election.

      If Obama doubts his ability to win the 2012 election – He will attack Iran. Period.

      That’s all there is to that.

      Like

      • LIB-VET says:

        Yea man, I know, I know! And there’s nothing wrong with blunt. I agree with you %100 on that. It just sucks to want to be an army man as a kid, you get 18 and are still a kid, join the service under the pretense of defending your country and “bam!” your a political tool. Thats what kids are sold when they join. Glory. But its not the actual product.

        Sorry to be so contrary.

        Well, I know we will kick ass, but the repercussions are going to be huge. Lack of money, increased middle east hostility… ect. Worst of all, Obama’s in again.

        Like

        • texan59 says:

          Lib-Vet – you should have done a little history lesson on your own before you signed up. Soldiers have been political tools since at least WWI. Viet Nam was terrible in the way that war/conflict was handled. Let alone the way our soldiers were treated upon their return. Look at what LBJ did micromanaging the war and such. There are many on here who can articulate much better what has transpired.

          Like

        • Coyote says:

          Lib-Vet, if you joined up with a preconceived notion that never changed as your service went along, well, I can’t do anything about that. It’s part of becoming a man. If you drift through your service life thinking that the military is all about this:

          …well then, maybe you don’t have the stomach for the job. Last I checked, if the eldest is 24 (you included), that qualifies you as an adult, even if you still consider yourself a “kid” who will fight will go fight the grown-ups’ war for us. I don’t want someone who thinks they are just doing a “job for someone else” just because they got told to go do something like clean their own room. This is the very essence of being an American Soldier, the essence of standing up and protecting our own against any and all threats. You aren’t the only one, nor have you been the only one to wear a uniform boy. I want a soldier who wears a uniform with some f(_)cking pride and purpose to help protect this country.
          It’s either time to cut bait, fish or get off the boat and let someone else step up.
          Yup, it’s a very dirty job. It can go from nothing to downright nasty in nothing flat. Everyone knows it, beyond the Glory and Sacrifice that is advertised. Adults see through that. Some of us think quite a bit about our sacrifices and what it means to us on a personal level. I understand if you are struggling with that. But, bitching about it while you are in isn’t an option. Trying to deal with it later is the only option. Dealing with the consequences and finally accepting those consequences are also part of it. I made my choices, relished them and asked for more. I knew what it would mean, later on. I knew, mostly, what it would do to my frame of mind, but not entirely. But, such is life. But, I didn’t whine about it. I knew what was coming to me. If you didn’t, you were lying to yourself. No one lied to you. YOU let yourself be lied to.
          A quick trip to the library or even a good search online would have taught you that, as texan59 points out, soldiers have ALWAYS been a political tool. The tool that is used when diplomacy fails.
          Open your dictionary to find the word “diplomacy”.
          The realization of your military existence and purpose should hit you right about then, if it hasn’t by now.
          I don’t think you are stupid. I do, however, think you are foolish. You signed up to protect and serve our nation. If you didn’t realize the full meaning of that, your capacity for understanding such notions are, unfortunately, vapid. That’s your burden, not mine or anyone else’s. Of course, to correct that, get out and put yourself to the utility of something more conducive to your character.
          Either way, stop bitching that you are a soldier. I don’t want to hear it.

          As far as failed diplomacy? It hasn’t failed entirely yet. There are some people in the shadows who ALSO make calls beyond the pResident’s impish sabre rattling for his own political agendas. WE see the real implications, and hopefully there are some adults behind the scenes who will help fix this.

          I’m also very surprised that you say ANYTHING about the president, even as much as he is despised. The ENTIRE time I served, I said nothing about any Commander in Chief, which included Clinton, because that action expressed “PROFESSIONALISM”.
          I think you are lacking in a most serious way.

          Like

    • Coyote says:

      Alright Lib-Vet. So you did a tour and you don’t want to see your guys killed. No one does. No dispute there.
      “No new wars unless attacked…” Again, no dispute there.
      “…they have no nukes.” – They may not have them now, I certainly don’t want the Iranians to get them…ever. They have, recently, been reported to have saying that they’d use them against us. Whuuup. Line drawn. I’ve worked hard to get where I’m at in life. Anyone to threaten me, my family, my country is going to get a broken nose and worse. That’s where the Department of Defense steps in, yeah?

      So, yeah…Lib-Vet, what solution do you propose?

      Like

      • GracieD says:

        Maybe Lib-Vet should meet Marcus Luttrell. I’m thinking his attitude would change pretty quickly. Marcus is a True Patriot, who has served his country well! We appreciate your service LV, sadly, it looks like you got in for the wrong reasons. You should look up Marcus Luttrell…HE is a Soldier.

        Like

  9. Solaratov says:

    “My guys work for the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.”

    Nobody ever won a war on defense.

    And DoD used to be called the “War Department”, for a very good reason. (Of course, back then, we fought wars to win.)

    War is just politics/diplomacy by other means. Soldiers have *always* been pawns in the political games played by the ‘rulers’ – and they always will be. That won’t ever change. The only thing that changes is the rulers’ name for the “cause” the soldiers fight and die for.
    And the only thing that withdrawing from the world stage and retreating (yes. retreating.) into a “fortress America” stance will buy us is a chance to fight a war on our own territory – along with the attendant destruction and loss of civilian lives that goes with it. It’s *ALWAYS* better to destroy the other guy’s country.

    Like

  10. “it is Western propaganda that keeps on saying that Iran is seeking a bomb, but it is not true.” -Ali Larijani, chairman of the Parliament of Iran.

    “If Iran turns into a nuclear power, then no one dares to challenge it because they have to pay a heavy price.” -Ali Larijani, chairman of the Parliament of Iran.

    Yeah, right.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s