List of ships heading to Iran anybody else hear about this

[lovuian]

The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the First and Second Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air and land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene and certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity and imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene and other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.

The US Naval forces being assembled include the following:

Carrier Strike Group Nine
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Two
Destroyer Squadron Nine:
USS Mobile Bay (CG53) guided missile cruiser
USS Russell (DDG59) guided missile destroyer
USS Momsen (DDG92) guided missile destroyer
USS Shoup (DDG86) guided missile destroyer
USS Ford (FFG54) guided missile frigate
USS Ingraham (FFG61) guided missile frigate
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG60) guided missile frigate
USS Curts (FFG38) guided missile frigate
Plus one or more nuclear hunter-killer submarines

Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Peleliu (LHA-5) a Tarawa-class amphibious assault carrier
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD52) assult ship
USS Dubuque (LPD8) assult ship/landing dock
USS Cape St. George (CG71) guided missile cruiser
USS Halsey (DDG97) guided missile destroyer
USS Benfold (DDG65) guided missile destroyer

Carrier Strike Group Two
USS Theodore Roosevelt (DVN71) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing Eight
Destroyer Squadron 22
USS Monterey (CG61) guided missile cruiser
USS Mason (DDG87) guided missile destroyer
USS Nitze (DDG94) guided missile destroyer
USS Sullivans (DDG68) guided missile destroyer

USS Springfield (SSN761) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

IWO ESG ~ Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group
USS Iwo Jima (LHD7) amphibious assault carrier
with its Amphibious Squadron Four
and with its 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
USS San Antonio (LPD17) assault ship
USS Velia Gulf (CG72) guided missile cruiser
USS Ramage (DDG61) guided missile destroyer
USS Carter Hall (LSD50) assault ship
USS Roosevelt (DDG80) guided missile destroyer

USS Hartfore (SSN768) nuclear powered hunter-killer submarine

Carrier Strike Group Seven
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) nuclear powered supercarrier
with its Carrier Air Wing 14
Destroyer Squadron 7
USS Chancellorsville (CG62) guided missile cruiser
USS Howard (DDG83) guided missile destroyer
USS Gridley (DDG101) guided missile destroyer
USS Decatur (DDG73) guided missile destroyer
USS Thach (FFG43) guided missile frigate
USNS Rainier (T-AOE-7) fast combat support ship

Also likely to join the battle armada:

UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal Carrier Strike Group with assorted guided missile destroyers and frigates, nuclear hunter-killer submarines and support ships




French Navy nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines (likely the Amethyste and perhaps others), plus French Naval Rafale fighter jets operating off of the USS Theodore Roosevelt as the French Carrier Charles de Gaulle is in dry dock, and assorted surface warships

Various other US Navy warships and submarines and support ships. The following USN ships took part (as the “enemy” forces) in Operation Brimstone and several may join in:

USS San Jacinto (CG56) guided missile cruiser
USS Anzio (CG68) guided missile cruiser
USS Normandy (CG60) guided missile cruiser
USS Carney (DDG64) guided missile destroyer
USS Oscar Austin (DDG79) guided missile destroyer
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG81) guided missile destroyer
USS Carr (FFG52) guided missile frigate

The USS Iwo Jima and USS Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Groups have USMC Harrier jump jets and an assortment of assault and attack helicopters. The Expeditionary Strike Groups have powerful USMC Expeditionary Units with amphibious armor and ground forces trained for operating in shallow waters and in seizures of land assets, such as Qeshm Island (a 50 mile long island off of Bandar Abbas in the Gulf of Hormuz and headquarters of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps).

The large and very advanced nature of the US Naval warships is not only directed at Iran. There is a great fear that Russia and China may oppose the naval and air/land blockade of Iran. If Russian and perhaps Chinese naval warships escort commercial tankers to Iran in violation of the blockade it could be the most dangerous at-sea confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US and allied Navies, by front loading a Naval blockade force with very powerful guided missile warships and strike carriers is attempting to have a force so powerful that Russia and China will not be tempted to mess with.

Oh forgot the dang link sheesh
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3849
Another link
http://europebusines.blogspot.com/


Anybody else see this list Scary times
Also notice he did it while Congress was adjourned

[snappyturtle]

1. It's not only curious that Congress is adjourned but * in China.

Where did you get this extensive list?

[L0oniX]

2. There's been a navy fleet in the gulf for quite a while. Where's the link to your info?

[Tindalos]

3. That is a LOT of ships

This is going to piss of a lot of people. As if things weren't bad enough already, they have to go throwing gas on the fire.

btw, I think this was posted yesterday. Not sure if anyone saw it in the deluge of JE threads.

[lovuian]

4. Ghost said yesterday that her friend who was in the navy

couldn't say where he was going just that he is on a boat

Its more secret than usual

[madfloridian]

5. I was not aware that so many Dems joined to declare Iran a great danger.

http://towardfreedom.com:80/home/content/view/1354/1/

"Monday, 14 July 2008
More than 100 House Democrats have joined 117 House Republicans in co-sponsoring a bill which peace activists fear may further pave the road to war with Iran. The Bill, House Concurrent Resolution 362, describes Iran as a threat to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and US National Security. Introduced on May 22 by New York Democrat Gary Ackerman, the bill calls for an affective blockade against Iran, which, according to international law, is an act of aggression.

As of July 5 the bill has 220 co-sponsors including prominent Democrats such as Barney Frank (MA), Alcee Hastings (FL), Steny Hoyer (MD), Henry Waxman (CA), and the "Fire Breathing Liberal" himself, Rep. Robert Wexler (FL).

H. Con. Res. 362 specifically calls on President Bush to "initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities." The bill urges the President to block refined petroleum exports to Iran and to impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program."

In a June 24 editorial, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer pointed out that the United Nations holds that "a unilateral blockade constitutes an act of war." The paper asks whether or not supporters of Res. 362 are "asleep at the wheel, or are they just anxious to drag us into another illegal war?" ("Iran: Scary language)"

[lovuian]

6. Congress is going along with the Iran blockade

It looks like the Georgia episode is to keep Putin busy
and China is busy with the Olympics

[libodem]

7. Interesting take

and I dare say, correct. Hmmmm?

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. that is most disturbing

I certainly hope that people of both parties will take a moment to reflect on the consequences of a war with Iran, if God forbid, such a thing were to happen.

Iran has more than the capabilities to retaliate with massive destruction of the Gulf region. They have thousands and thousands of rather basic and relatively unsophisticated medium range missiles positioned in unapproachable and hostile terrain, missiles that are more than capable of paralyzing the Gulf region and choking off the supply of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, and bringing massive long term destruction on the refineries, oil fields and transport networks - (AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE IRANIANS WILL RETALIATE - IF ATTACKED!!!)Thus sending oil prices into the stratosphere - perhaps as much as $400 per barrel - thus collapsing the global economy and triggering massive starvations in the non oil producing third world and a catastrophic worldwide depression at least on par with the great depression of the 1930's.

The current problems in the Caucusses between Russia and Georgia greatly complicate the matter further by making cooperation between Russia and the Europe Union in restraining conflict much more difficult.

____________________________________________

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

[madfloridian]

10. 100 Democrats going along with it.

It just plain scares me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. scares me too.. but does not surprise me...it is what I would expect

If God forbid, conflict were to break out, I fully expect the Democratic leadership including the nominees would be under almost irresistible pressure from extremely powerful political forces to either support it outright, or at least not oppose it. I would actually be quite surprised if they were to do otherwise.

In terms of political development to oppose openly hostile developments with Iran would be analogous to - if Hubert Humphrey had come out against further deployments to Viet Nam in 1964. Remember, even George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy voted yes on the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

The current range of political debate in our dealings with the Middle East seems to be about where the range of debate regarding "Communisms" was in 1964. Except in 1964, there was almost no popular opposition, but there were serious questions being asked in the U.S. Senate. Now there is considerably more popular opposition, but few if any serious questions being asked in the U.S. Senate or by the media. On the other hand, in 1964 the military and the intelligence services were promising an end within sight. Now the Pentagon and intelligence top brass know better.

[spanone]

9. i r a n.....it's coming to an election near you

[davsand]

11. Are we allowed to post this kind of stuff on DU?

While I understand the intent behind putting this out for discussion, is it ok to put this kind of stuff up on DU? I'm hearing the old "loose lips sink ships" slogan and I'm wondering about it today.


Are you SURE you want this thread to stand?



Laura

[Pavulon]

12. Unless it is classified

it is not illegal or even questionable.

it has no real tactical use to anyone. Janes sells this type of information as do other companies.

This information, if correct, is not connected to an attack plan as the article would have you believe.

There has been no consensus to plan to blockade Iran.

[davsand]

14. I don't want to see a DUer (or anyone else!) water boarded for a mistake.

These folks are not noted for a sense of humor or any forgiveness.



Peace to you, and keep safe out there.



Laura

[Pavulon]

16. Prison

the way that works is that if you knowingly distribute classified information entrusted to you or knowingly pass on classified information you are subject to prison and fines. It is a pretty common problem.

I would question this because of the source and conclusions drawn with lack of fact.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. In that both the Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly

expressed grave concerns about military conflict with Iran and in that there does seem to be understanding among the professional class in both the military and intelligence services of the consequences, I would doubt that such a provocative act would actually take place.

But since there are political demagogues and ideologues who do not care about such realities, I cannot completely rule out the possibility either. And if God forbid, such an insane and suicidal provocation of war with Iran were to happen, I can easily imagine that the majority of politicians of both parties acting rather gutless in opposing it openly, at least initially.

[seemslikeadream]

13. It's all over the place

no secret


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3756171

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Oh, goody. Lots of flags, smart bomb videos, grinning pilots, and bumper stiickers.

Not to mention the bodies.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi