report details US/NATO march to war

[mhgaffney]

This report goes beyond most of the papers we've seen to date, by presenting a more comprehensive picture of the US/NATO military buildup underway not just in the Gulf but also in the eastern Mediterranean and in Asia.

Several flash or choke points are discussed -- especially the Caucasus, Lebanon and Pakistan. BTW the author agrees with me that the US minesweepers recently deployed to the Gulf are an indication of war preparations. The sweepers would be used to keep Hormuz open in the event of war with Iran.

The paper also discusses NATO's shift into eastern Europe. The paper helps to make sense of the recent Lebanon war.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15212.htm

[bendog]

The USN has what ship?

battle cruiser U.S.S. Leyte Gulf

I thought the Guam and Alaska were made into razor blades.

[loborugger]

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

And there is probably a reason why...

Come 'on. If you are gonna report on naval activity, you should at least have a clue what you are talking about.

Short list of things.

1. Frigates are just that - not "war frigates"
2. I was in numerous Carrier Battle Groups. Never once was the presence of a sub mentioned in the BG. Undoubtedly we had one or more keeping up company, but its never publicized.
3. The USNS Supply will not be useful in confronting the Iranian navy. The USNS Supply is there to keep the warships stocked... It is a floating WalMart.
4. Carriers, at least every carrier I have ever been around or heard of, sails with a helicopter squadron. The helos serve a multitude of roles, one of which is ASW. The fact that a carrier sailed with a helo squadron is not noteworthy, on the contrary, a carrier sailing without a helo squadron would be noteworthy.

I got that in just 3 minutes of reading... If that is the quality of their work, I am not going to get excited about their reporting.

[mhgaffney]

The writer may not be a naval expert, but I found his discussion valuable, just the same: in particular, his discussion of the growing tensions in the Caucasus, i.e., between Georgia and Russia. Evidently Georgia is now in the US camp. This geographic area also includes Chechnya and Azerbaijan, and is strategically vital because of the oil pipelines that run through it.

If the US attacks Iran the flow of oil through the straits of Hormuz will be disrupted. In this event the world price of oil will skyrocket -- and Russia will reap a windfall because its oil will continue to flow. Point being: will the US then foment trouble in the Caucasus -- by egging on our proxies there -- to disrupt or sabotague the Russian pipelines? It's a serious question that no one has asked -- to my knowledge.

The author also mentioned that Russian and Chinese troops are now in Lebanon -- or soon will be -- part of the UN mission. This was news to me and if true it's ominous, This could mean big trouble in the event of war with Iran -- since Lebanon is almost certain to be involved. The last thing we need is a head to head between Israel and China/Russia forces.

The insertion of a UN peacekeeper force in Lebanon is at best problematic -- and at worst extremely dangerous, because of the likelihood that UN troops will come into conflict with Israel. The Israelis have never supported UN peaeckeepers in their region -- because they insist on freedom of movement -- and they will no doubt regard the UN force as hostile. If trouble arises the US will probably make things even worse by using our veto to block the international community, thus giving Israel a free hand.

This is a nightmare waiting to happen. If Bush does Iran we can expect war on many fronts from Pakistan to Turkey -- in which case God help us. Once it starts how do you stop it?

[fido]

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

And there is probably a reason why...

1. Frigates are just that - not "war frigates"


:rofl:

I landed on one of your big boats once in a helo, they wouldn't let me go fishing :~ohyah!:

[defenseman]

NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

And there is probably a reason why...

Come 'on. If you are gonna report on naval activity, you should at least have a clue what you are talking about.

Short list of things.

1. Frigates are just that - not "war frigates"
2. I was in numerous Carrier Battle Groups. Never once was the presence of a sub mentioned in the BG. Undoubtedly we had one or more keeping up company, but its never publicized.
3. The USNS Supply will not be useful in confronting the Iranian navy. The USNS Supply is there to keep the warships stocked... It is a floating WalMart.
4. Carriers, at least every carrier I have ever been around or heard of, sails with a helicopter squadron. The helos serve a multitude of roles, one of which is ASW. The fact that a carrier sailed with a helo squadron is not noteworthy, on the contrary, a carrier sailing without a helo squadron would be noteworthy.

I got that in just 3 minutes of reading... If that is the quality of their work, I am not going to get excited about their reporting.

I say that is a fair take. Quite honestly, this guy could be classified as a two-bit "hack" wrt naval tactics, operations and planning. A majority of the time he's out in la-la land, occassionally he makes it to timbuktu, once in a blue moon he may be near the ball park. Definitely not reliable information....dman

[bendog]

I've always been a bit po'd that neither of the Lexington class and Yorktown class carriers were preserved, and I'd really have liked to have seen one of the Guam class battlecruisers. They must have been very beautiful.

I think the USS north carolina BB in in NC, and I hope to see that one day. I've seen the museum in NYC years ago and that's outstanding. In London, the HMS Belfast is interesting and the Imperial War Museum is imposing. There's a tall ship at the Royal Observatory ... Cutty Sark? I havn't seen the HMS victory at Portsmouth.