Obama Begins Preperation for War with Iran

WakeUp · 23-05-2010 10:17PM #1

Debkafile's military sources are reporting that a decision has been taken by the Obama administration
to boost US and stooge's forces in the Persian Gulf by up to 400%.

Carrier strike group 10 headed by the the USS Harry S Truman left its naval base on may 21st with 6000 marines and sailors on board enroute
to the Persian Gulf. When it arrives it will bring the total to two US aircraft carrier strike groups
directly off the coast of Iran.

Another four guided missile-cruiser/destroyer US warships will be making there way to the region along
with the USS Truman.

The US plans to have up to 5 Carrier strike groups off the coast of Iran by the end of July, early August of this year.

And so it begins.
http://www.debka.com/article/8794/

amacachi · 23-05-2010 10:37PM

They're going to put in 5 times as many troops as are currently there? When's the conscription announcement?
Or is it only 5 times as many troops trained in one specific thing?

WakeUp · 23-05-2010 11:04PM

amacachi wrote: »

They're going to put in 5 times as many troops as are currently there? When's the conscription announcement?
Or is it only 5 times as many troops trained in one specific thing?

Dont think it is a question of conscription. They are building up naval forces in the Persian Gulf which is basically aircraft carriers and there subsquent attack/support ships & subs. The carrier strike groups will already have there sailors so I dont think they need to conscript anyone not yet anyway.

Marines are used in naval operations i.e beach landings and such and Im sure the US has plenty of them on hand and ready to go.

squod · 23-05-2010 11:12PM

Wonder what the stooge will be for this war. Or is there even gonna be one.

amacachi · 23-05-2010 11:34PM

WakeUp wrote: »

Dont think it is a question of conscription. They are building up naval forces in the Persian Gulf which is basically aircraft carriers and there subsquent attack/support ships & subs. The carrier strike groups will already have there sailors so I dont think they need to conscript anyone not yet anyway.

Marines are used in naval operations i.e beach landings and such and Im sure the US has plenty of them on hand and ready to go.

So much wrong here.
Anyway, I'm asking about the 400% increase. I'm assuming it's a 400% increase above a small number, i.e., not all soldiers, because there aren't that many soldiers to head over.
The marines aren't just used for naval stuff, they're used for all kinds of special missions etc., and the term is used interchangably with others for highly trained soldiers. So again, is that 400% increase only for a specific type of soldier, because that impression doesn't come across in the OP.

WakeUp · 23-05-2010 11:46PM

amacachi wrote: »

So much wrong here.
Anyway, I'm asking about the 400% increase. I'm assuming it's a 400% increase above a small number, i.e., not all soldiers, because there aren't that many soldiers to head over.
The marines aren't just used for naval stuff, they're used for all kinds of special missions etc., and the term is used interchangably with others for highly trained soldiers. So again, is that 400% increase only for a specific type of soldier, because that impression doesn't come across in the OP.

Currently there is 1 carrier strike group operating in the Persian gulf. By the end of July early August the US plans to have up to five. 1 carrier strike group = 100%, if you increase this to five that would be a 400% increase. I never said they were just used for "naval stuff" they have got other roles too but that is their predominant role. Special forces usually operate on their own behind enemy lines i.e Navy Seals. This is who looks after the "special" mission's not the marines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

amacachi · 24-05-2010 12:04AM

WakeUp wrote: »

Debkafile's military sources are reporting that a decision has been taken by the Obama administration
to boost US and stooge's forces in the Persian Gulf by up to 400%.

See there you're suggesting the number of soldiers will be increased by up to 400%

WakeUp wrote: »

Currently there is 1 carrier strike group operating in the Persian gulf. By the end of July early August the US plans to have up to five. 1 carrier strike group = 100%, if you increase this to five that would be a 400% increase. I never said they were just used for "naval stuff" they have got other roles too but that is their predominant role. Special forces usually operate on their own behind enemy lines i.e Navy Seals. This is who looks after the "special" mission's not the marines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

But there you're talking about just one component of the forces in the area increasing by 400%. You do see what I'm getting at here I assume?

WakeUp · 24-05-2010 12:16AM

amacachi wrote: »

See there you're suggesting the number of soldiers will be increased by up to 400%

Can you please point out where I said there would be a 400% increase in "soldiers"?. Dont bother I will save you the trouble you wont be able to. the word I used was forces not "soldiers". Did you read the link, do you understand whats going on?

amacachi wrote: »

But there you're talking about just one component of the forces in the area increasing by 400%. You do see what I'm getting at here I assume?

What is your point?

amacachi · 24-05-2010 12:29AM

So "forces" doesn't equal soldiers? So again, that 400% increase is a 400% increase in one part of the force is equal to a much smaller increase in the actual force as a whole.
But you say at the start of your OP that it's a 400% increase in their forces, which it isn't, it's a much smaller increase than that. And let's not forget the "up to" bit.

WakeUp · 24-05-2010 12:52AM

amacachi wrote: »

So "forces" doesn't equal soldiers? So again, that 400% increase is a 400% increase in one part of the force is equal to a much smaller increase in the actual force as a whole.
But you say at the start of your OP that it's a 400% increase in their forces, which it isn't, it's a much smaller increase than that. And let's not forget the "up to" bit.

Ok, last try. We are talking about a naval build up of forces. As I have already explained to you there is 1 carrier strike group at present in the Persian Gulf. The US has plans to bring this number up to 5. As there is only 1 carrier strike group at present in the Persian Gulf this represents total US forces in the Persian Gulf (100%). Now, should they increase this to 5 carriers well then it would be a 400% increase in total naval forces in the region. With all due respect I think your a little confused and I know your ill-informed. Come back to me when you know what your talking about.

amacachi · 24-05-2010 12:57AM

WakeUp wrote: »

Ok, last try. We are talking about a naval build up of forces. As I have already explained to you there is 1 carrier strike group at present in the Persian Gulf. The US has plans to bring this number up to 5. As there is only 1 carrier strike group at present in the Persian Gulf this represents total US forces in the Persian Gulf (100%). Now, should they increase this to 5 carriers well then it would be a 400% increase in total naval forces in the region. With all due respect I think your a little confused and I know your ill-informed. Come back to me when you know what your talking about.

There we go, just wanted you to be clear. Because when people refer to "The Gulf" it tends to refer to the land as well as the body of water itself. I just wanted you to be clear that the numbers in the region weren't going up by 400%.

Torakx · 24-05-2010 01:11AM

Hello any attack meaningful is going to be by air i would imagine.
Missiles would do the job or aircraft.
I have been waiting for the move on Iran since i had a peek at the whole Isreal and the american media topic in another thread.
Coincedance some people might say.I guess time will tell.
Maybe its a feint by the Americans to provoke or something.

WakeUp · 24-05-2010 01:28AM

amacachi wrote: »

There we go, just wanted you to be clear. Because when people refer to "The Gulf" it tends to refer to the land as well as the body of water itself. I just wanted you to be clear that the numbers in the region weren't going up by 400%.

Your having a laugh right. Either you cant read or your being flippant on purpose or you don't know what you are talking about, I think it's a combination of the latter two personally. You've quoted me as typing the words "the Gulf". I want you to go find that quote and show it to me please, bet you wont be able to find it because it does not exist, only in your head.

If you had been following what Ive been typing correctly you would see as clear as day that I have referred to part of the world Im talking about as the Persian Gulf,every time, not "the Gulf" as you now claim.

If you knew what you were talking about, and where anyway competent in geography, you would know that the Persian Gulf is an extension of the Indian ocean located between Iran and the Arabian peninsula.

Have a nice night.

WakeUp · 24-05-2010 01:31AM

Torakx wrote: »

Hello any attack meaningful is going to be by air i would imagine.
Missiles would do the job or aircraft.
I have been waiting for the move on Iran since i had a peek at the whole Isreal and the american media topic in another thread.
Coincedance some people might say.I guess time will tell.
Maybe its a feint by the Americans to provoke or something.

I agree. I also think it might be part of the plan to initiate a naval blockade against Iran maybe somehow provoke them. Either way I think the US is on the war-path again.

amacachi · 24-05-2010 02:19AM

Facepalm.
I know where the Gulf is, I know what a Gulf is, I'm more than competent when it comes to geography, my point is that any time I hear the area kinda south-east of Israel referred to as "the Gulf" it is meant to mean the land in the area. Otherwise, where did the "Gulf War" moniker come from? I just wanted to be clear that you did not mean that the forces in the whole region were going up 400%, and that only a component of the forces in the region may be increased.
Also, it's easy to increase something by a large percentage when starting from a small base like, er, 1.

WakeUp · 24-05-2010 02:35AM

amacachi wrote: »

Facepalm.
I know where the Gulf is, I know what a Gulf is, I'm more than competent when it comes to geography, my point is that any time I hear the area kinda south-east of Israel referred to as "the Gulf" it is meant to mean the land in the area. Otherwise, where did the "Gulf War" moniker come from? I just wanted to be clear that you did not mean that the forces in the whole region were going up 400%, and that only a component of the forces in the region may be increased.
Also, it's easy to increase something by a large percentage when starting from a small base like, er, 1.

Listen dude your all over the shop here to be honest and you are the only one talking about "the Gulf" show me where I said that, you are not able to are you, I know your not because I never said "the Gulf". Your question about the Gulf war is irrelevant and pointless to this thread. Where as me on the other hand I'm talking about the Persian Gulf , there is a difference, but you still haven't figured that out it would appear. Im going to bed now because its late so I bid you goodnight. If you want to keep digging a hole, be my guest.

amacachi · 24-05-2010 02:38AM

I really can't be arsed, enjoy your discussion lads.

uprising2 · 27-05-2010 02:35AM

Torakx wrote: »

Hello any attack meaningful is going to be by air i would imagine.
Missiles would do the job or aircraft.
I have been waiting for the move on Iran since i had a peek at the whole Isreal and the american media topic in another thread.
Coincedance some people might say.I guess time will tell.
Maybe its a feint by the Americans to provoke or something.

I,ve been waiting years for this, guess Iraq didn't pan out as planned, here's a link I remembered, prophetic (apart from the bush part).

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Sunday, November 10, 2002 by the Toronto Sun [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After Iraq, Bush Will Attack His Real Target [/FONT]

But for all the propaganda about wicked Saddam, Iraq is not the main objective for the small but powerful coterie of Pentagon hardliners driving the Bush administration's national security policy. Nor is it for their intellectual and emotional peers in Israel's right-wing Likud party. The real target of the coming war is Iran, which Israel views as its principal and most dangerous enemy. Iraq merely serves as a pretext to whip America into a war frenzy and to justify insertion of large numbers of U.S. troops into Mesopotamia.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1110-07.htm

Kepti · 27-05-2010 04:19PM

uprising2 wrote: »

I,ve been waiting years for this, guess Iraq didn't pan out as planned, here's a link I remembered, prophetic (apart from the bush part).
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Sunday, November 10, 2002 by the Toronto Sun [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After Iraq, Bush Will Attack His Real Target [/FONT]

But for all the propaganda about wicked Saddam, Iraq is not the main objective for the small but powerful coterie of Pentagon hardliners driving the Bush administration's national security policy. Nor is it for their intellectual and emotional peers in Israel's right-wing Likud party. The real target of the coming war is Iran, which Israel views as its principal and most dangerous enemy. Iraq merely serves as a pretext to whip America into a war frenzy and to justify insertion of large numbers of U.S. troops into Mesopotamia.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1110-07.htm

Where does Afghanistan fit in seeing as that was the target after Iraq, and not Iran?

Brown Bomber · 27-05-2010 04:21PM

Kepti wrote: »

Where does Afghanistan fit in seeing as that was the target after Iraq, and not Iran?

Afghanistan was attacked before Iraq.

Kepti · 27-05-2010 04:34PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Afghanistan was attacked before Iraq.

You're dead right, Afghanistan was attacked first.

I apologize because I wasn't at all clear, but after Iraq, the focus shifted back to Afghanistan with Obama committing 30,000 more troops.

fontanalis · 27-05-2010 04:49PM

uprising2 wrote: »

I,ve been waiting years for this, guess Iraq didn't pan out as planned, here's a link I remembered, prophetic (apart from the bush part).
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Sunday, November 10, 2002 by the Toronto Sun [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After Iraq, Bush Will Attack His Real Target [/FONT]

But for all the propaganda about wicked Saddam, Iraq is not the main objective for the small but powerful coterie of Pentagon hardliners driving the Bush administration's national security policy. Nor is it for their intellectual and emotional peers in Israel's right-wing Likud party. The real target of the coming war is Iran, which Israel views as its principal and most dangerous enemy. Iraq merely serves as a pretext to whip America into a war frenzy and to justify insertion of large numbers of U.S. troops into Mesopotamia.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1110-07.htm

And boy did he attack them!

namloc1980 · 27-05-2010 07:14PM

Kepti wrote: »

Where does Afghanistan fit in seeing as that was the target after Iraq, and not Iran?

Well some might say that by having a presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan that the US have the potential to strike Iran from west and east:

Yitzhak Rabin · 27-05-2010 07:55PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Well some might say that by having a presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan that the US have the potential to strike Iran from west and east:

Particularly when they also allowed have troops in Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbyjan(sp?), Turkey and Saudi Arabia. You could understand how Ahmadinejad is getting nervous.

fontanalis · 27-05-2010 08:17PM

If any action is taken against Iran it's unlikely ground troops will be committed as they have a more cohesive army than Iraq or the Taliban. It would be air strikes and they don't necessarily need to be plonked next door.

uprising2 · 27-05-2010 08:35PM

fontanalis wrote: »

And boy did he attack them!

Who? and what is your point?(if any), and what part of "AFTER IRAQ" do you have trouble understanding?, I know govt's can waste money, but I surely hope your not one of the paid trolls/sceptics mentioned on another
thread.

You should focus your skills where they advance, an A for Apple type preschool book maybe.

WakeUp · 29-05-2010 04:44PM

namloc1980 wrote: »

Well some might say that by having a presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan that the US have the potential to strike Iran from west and east:

I agree,Iran is surrounded by US & Nato forces. Iran has always been the end game the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,imo, were about oil and tactical positioning. The US have had plans to invade both Iraq and Iran going back to the Clinton administration, part of USCENTCOM ( US Central Command ) doctrine outline's this quite blatantly..

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region" vital interests = uninterrupted, secure U.S./Stooge access to oil in the region.

Back to the present day and the Israeli's are holding more war games. The war games are codenamed "MINOAS 2010" and are being conducted in conjunction with the Greeks which is interesting to say the least. The purpose of the exercise is reported to be aerial long range mission's and mid-air refueling. The Greeks possess the advanced anti-aircraft system S300 which Iran is trying to purchase from the Russian's if they haven't been supplied with it already.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=128008&sectionid=351020202

mysterious · 30-05-2010 02:15AM

Romania Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Tibet axis. The crown wants to rule this area more than oil I will have you know. Oil is just a distraction. I mean its already at the insanity where the Americans could just admit they are after oil. Nobody even cares or does any actual research into the reasons and why's to war. War is absurd and primal for starters. It's also unacceptable number 2. It's also for greed and power number 3. Number 4 its all other reasons after that.

Iraq was about the Enki stargate in SE iraq. it's connected to Tibet and Afghanistan. They want to activate the ancient technology and ensure no one else get's their hands on it. The crown has it now, so they will push for war like they have been for quite some time.

Will people wake up ? None of what I said is real apparently. Most of us are too busy reading bull**** to actually realise what goes on our planet all the time in FRONT of our backs.

northwest100 · 30-05-2010 12:38PM

Iraq was about the Enki stargate in SE iraq. it's connected to Tibet and Afghanistan. They want to activate the ancient technology and ensure no one else get's their hands on it. The crown has it now, so they will push for war like they have been for quite some time.

could it not be much simpler?

like, preventing both china and russia having exclusive access to gas and oil in that region?

ensuring the US and europe are not totally dependent upon russia or iran for oil and gas...

of course, the area is of some strategic importance, but i think the main reason for that is the oil and gas, economic reasons naturally.

the US have established bases in most of central asia and middle east -- except Iran.

you can bet it's not to preserve liberty and democracy.

mysterious · 30-05-2010 11:10PM

northwest100 wrote: »

could it not be much simpler?

like, preventing both china and russia having exclusive access to gas and oil in that region?

ensuring the US and europe are not totally dependent upon russia or iran for oil and gas...

of course, the area is of some strategic importance, but i think the main reason for that is the oil and gas, economic reasons naturally.

the US have established bases in most of central asia and middle east -- except Iran.

you can bet it's not to preserve liberty and democracy.

It is simple. Its always been this way, going back thousands of years. It seems you think that all things "are just been invented" and humanity popped out of an egg almost and "just so happened to saved by science" It's nothing but farce. This been simple or complicated is not the point here. The point is people just can't handle the truth. What I'm saying to you, is only a fraction of whats going on. Even I get overwhelmed discussing these subjects. The Illuminati are hundreds of years ahead of what they are letting on. Your right about certain aspects of this war, but the reality is it's goes much deeper than that. You can however stick to "oh comfort zone MSM crap" It is mind raping to any individual who really wants to gain knowledge and nothing but the truth. The crap we are been fed by the media is downright ludicrous. Mainly because we all go out and fight these stupid wars and nobody knows what we are fighting for. This aspect touches me personally, because I just don't understand why people waste their lives away believing in the lie and giving up their true purpose to be a slave to this system. We are all a slave to this system. People don't have awareness, compassion or guts anymore. People are more willing to risk their lives under the authority of someone else, than actually risk their own life to better their own life and world. I just don't understand how people can be so docile these days. Very few people on this world can handle the truth. It will shatter everything you ever believed in life. For me, I am just fed up with the way people are about everything that goes on this world. Nobody pays real attention to this world or what they want or seek. It's sad really.

The Illuminati and crown colonies have been air raiding different parts of the world for reasons you wouldn't probably not care to know or even imagine. This is has been going on since the fall of Atlantis. This world is a very mysteriously place.

There is hundreds of underwater pre ice age cities discovered across the globe. literally million's of authors, books, researchers and truthers are exposing the ancient civilizations that existed before this one. But as I said everyone is becomes overwhelmed or stunned when they confront this subject over and over. Tunnels and underground cities have been found all over the globe. Pyramids have been found in Bosnia, China, Japan and underwater. Whistleblowers are exposing this daily now. I know a few people personally who are in the know on this. There are underground tunnels that are newly built that go much deeper than "a few miles down". This is a frequency war Namloc, its not just an ordinary blood and oil war. I don't think there was anything ordinary about whatever was and will ever go on this world. The world is quite frankly insane to me.

For example, You get "a Iraq war derangement syndrome"

The ancient E.Ts built technology on this planet and they are well hidden in many pockets all over the globe. When something is found or rediscovered. We are not the only one's around here.

We are the pawns in this game. Until we stand up in some way and make a difference than we are the decider of not only how this game will end but how we will be to the very end and after this time.

Thats the simplicity of it. But we can't handle not been told this info, because we are brainwashed to trust the MSM and governments over and over. Yet they lie over and over. Greed and power always come's first. Governments have went against each other out of deliberate acts to get us fighting wars, so we are all killing each other for a stupid cause (as usual) like " the big bad evil terrorist that is out there to get us".

It is the most annoying world I've been too to tell you the truth, because most people on this world are stuck in a mind fukck. We are really close minded on anything outside this reality. Humanity just couldn't get more docile and easier to control than this.

It's like the NWO and Fear propaganda. The governments are already successful at all their sinister plans. Who is going to stop them. Even the truthers that are exposing the shiit don't even know the half because they even can't handle the truth of just how mind depleting this game is. It can send you insane if you knew what I knew on a deeper level.

Iraq is an ancient settlement for the Annunaki/Nephilim beings that were here thousands of years ago. They are uncovering everything since the great flood and major cataclysms of last time around.

I think they will fail opening these portals, because its all corruption again with power over the many. I really hope people wake up fast and now this time.

Yitzhak Rabin · 30-05-2010 11:25PM

What do they plan on doing with the stargate?

Obama Begins Preperation for War with Iran

Comments