War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[Norfolk]

that's what occurred?

I read about this during the late summer or early fall. I'll see if I can dig up the articles. Anyway, when the Admiral in the Gulf was told about this, he in turn told them that "there was no military need for more than 1-2 carriers" in the ME and environs; he repeated this to a journalist who interviewed him. I don't rmember his name, but the Admiral in question was the 3-Star in charge in the Gulf (in Bahrain I believe). Give me I bit and I'll see what I can dig back up.

Edit:

The name of the Admiral is Kevin J. Cosgriff...still searching...

[Norfolk]

Sorry, it was Admiral Fallon himself who said that: I haven"t got the quote yet, but here's a look to partial info from EIR:

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...tler_1938.html

Go over halfway down - it says under the section of the article "Revolt of the US Generals" that Fallon - and I'm practically quoting the article here - is on public record as opposing a confrontation with Iran and that he petitioned Washington to send one of his two carriers back to the US as a third carrier was arriving in order to avoid creating more tension.

I'll get back when I've dug up more.

[Norfolk]

Here's the piece on Admiral Fallon in May:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/fallon-carrier/

Still working on the 4 carriers bit...found a blog mentioning it but it was referencing DEBKA File and I want something more solid.

Edit: Here's a fuller version of the piece from IPS itself:

http://ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37738

[Norfolk]

As for the fourth carrier, the one that was to be sent to the Red Sea, here's another blog referencing DEBKA File: - it's about 2/3rds down the page.

http://www.bloggingthejihad.com/

I'll keep trying to find a better source for that one.

[Ken White]

Sorry, it was Admiral Fallon himself who said that: I haven"t got the quote yet, but here's a look to partial info from EIR:
. . .
I'll get back when I've dug up more.

Fallon is the CincCent; he came on board saying that, no surprise there. Fallon's job is to worry about the whole CentCom area, not just Iran or Iraq; he's got a big AO and a total force to worry about. He made a statement to the press -- that's not the same thing at all as "bluntly telling the Prseident." I can assure you that no Admiral is likely to do that (and that is why I questioned your Comment).

Cheney's speech in the Gulf was aboard the USS John C. Stennis, not TO the Gulf States and that he said there were two CSGs there. There was a lot of idiotic garbage by the talking heads and in the lefty blogosphere about three or four CSGs but the incompetents in the media missed the fact that there was a long scheduled exercise plus a routine changeover underway (LINK). Cosgriff took over fifth Fleet from Walsh last spring. I suspect he was alos asked by some clueless journalist how many carriers he needed and he answered the question -- I again suggest that is not the same thing as "...bluntly telling the President" -- which no Vice Admiral is likely to do ever.

Much ado about nothing...

As for your fear that the Administration still intends to "do something about Iran," your prerogative. I suggest a simple way to enhance or degrade that fear, which ever you wish, is to read the US media who are relatively clueless and prone to promote panic to sell ad space to raise your fears or you can simply watch what the Administration does vice paying any attention to what any politician says to lessen that fear.

I suggest you take most stuff in the blogosphere with a dump truck full of salt as well; there's an appalling amount of ignorance out there that likes to pass itself off as informed comment and I'd take two truckloads to the Larouche site...

Added: or debka File. I could add a couple of others but I don't want to get SWJ in trouble

Personally, barring something really stupid from Ahmadinejad & Co, I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.

[Norfolk]

Fallon is the CincCent; he came on board saying that, no surprise there. Fallon's job is to worry about the whole CentCom area, not just Iran or Iraq; he's got a big AO and a total force to worry about. He made a statement to the press -- that's not the same thing at all as "bluntly telling the Prseident." I can assure you that no Admiral is likely to do that (and that is why I questioned your Comment).

Cheney's speech in the Gulf was aboard the USS John C. Stennis, not TO the Gulf States and that he said there were two CSGs there. There was a lot of idiotic garbage by the talking heads and in the lefty blogosphere about three or four CSGs but the incompetents in the media missed the fact that there was a long scheduled exercise plus a routine changeover underway (LINK). Cosgriff took over fifth Fleet from Walsh last spring. I suspect he was alos asked by some clueless journalist how many carriers he needed and he answered the question -- I again suggest that is not the same thing as "...bluntly telling the President" -- which no Vice Admiral is likely to do ever.

Much ado about nothing...

As for your fear that the Administration still intends to "do something about Iran," your prerogative. I suggest a simple way to enhance or degrade that fear, which ever you wish, is to read the US media who are relatively clueless and prone to promote panic to sell ad space to raise your fears or you can simply watch what the Administration does vice paying any attention to what any politician says to lessen that fear.

I suggest you take most stuff in the blogospher with a dump truck full of salt as well; there's an appalling amount of ignorance out there that likes to pass itself off as informed comment and I'd take two truckloads to the Larouche site...

Personally, barring something really stupid from Ahmadinejad & Co, I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.

Good thing you're around to keep young'uns like me in line, Ken.

[wm]

Norfolk,
As Ken said, probably much more politely and elegantly, there's a lot of tripe out on the web masquerading as good information. Before you start to buy into the "reporting" by various websites, it probably would be a good idea to check on the axes they have to grind. When you consider that even the more respected publications of the MSM have editorial biases, finding distortion in the "free press" of the Web (AKA Blogosphere) ought not be too surprising. Consider this Time article as a counterpoint to your other sources.

[Norfolk]

Norfolk,
As Ken said, probably much more politely and elegantly, there's a lot of tripe out on the web masquerading as good information. Before you start to buy into the "reporting" by various websites, it probably would be a good idea to check on the axes they have to grind. When you consider that even the more respected publications of the MSM have editorial biases, finding distortion in the "free press" of the Web (AKA Blogosphere) ought not be too surprising. Consider this Time article as a counterpoint to your other sources.

I indeed stand corrected, wm.

And hopefully the article that you provided the link to is in fact the eulogy of the "strike Iran" movement.

[Ken White]

vocalization of a number of folks who aren't nearly as bright as they they think they are -- and who will have absolutely no responsibility were that to occur. Idiots like that need careful watching lest they get out of control but one need not put much stock in what they say as being policy. Nor should one put much stock in the media reports that listen to those squirrels.

OTOH, the Administration -- this or any other -- has to say certain things in order to attempt to control things on a worldwide basis. Whether we like it or not, what the US does affects the whole world in many ways and every Admin has to be very aware of that and tailor what they say in public accordingly. In the case at issue, Bush has to tell Iran they're being dumb in his view and do that forcefully enough to have some credibility yet not so forcefully as to panic the world over yet another war. Hard line to balance upon...

Watch what happens, not what's said. I don't believe much I see in the media or on the web until I see it corroborated in at least three competing sources; it's all F6 initially.

Also have to remember that a Rifle Co moving down the road which receives fire almost always will report that they are receiving killing fire from a reinforced Regiment as well as air strikes and are taking massive casualties. Then, after everything gets sorted out, turns out it was about 20 guys with a couple of RPDs and a couple of RPGs -- and the "air strike" was one of the RPG gunners firing way high and they "massive casualties" are five men WIA. Initial reports are most generally overblown and most always inaccurate due to a logically and naturally confused situation, have to wait until all the info comes out and gets sorted. With most so-called news reports, that takes from a couple of weeks to a few months.

[selil]

Norfolk,
As Ken said, probably much more politely and elegantly, there's a lot of tripe out on the web masquerading as good information.

He some of us work hard on our tripe. It's specially seasoned and full of good vitamins. It will give you a manly physique and make you smarter too. Really.

If you want an interesting perspective on the US and Iran conflict ask a Persian. They're the people who are from Iran and when you call them an Arab they are truly offended and will correct you. They have a long memory and talk about how many thousands of years their family has been living in the same compound. I can't remember my last address. I was talking with an Iranian student and she said she was worried the war would last to long and she would have to skip going home this summer. I'm still processing that little bit of information.

[Ken White]

He some of us work hard on our tripe. It's specially seasoned and full of good vitamins. It will give you a manly physique and make you smarter too. Really.

Of course, I'm living proof of that...

If you want an interesting perspective on the US and Iran conflict ask a Persian. They're the people who are from Iran and when you call them an Arab they are truly offended and will correct you. They have a long memory and talk about how many thousands of years their family has been living in the same compound. I can't remember my last address. I was talking with an Iranian student and she said she was worried the war would last to long and she would have to skip going home this summer. I'm still processing that little bit of information.

Too true on the Empire, they really believe...

The student's thoughts typify 'em. They are deeply entwined with the past; the future -- most take the Alfred E. Newman approach; Be Omehdi Xoda. Got an acquaintance here whose family is there, in Mashad. Their plan is to got to Afghanistan until the war is over...