[Ninong]

Answer: Three Going on Five?

There is more going on over there than meets the eye. We are pulling troops out of Afghanistan and sending them to Iraq. That should make Mullah Omar's day. And we just moved the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower to the coast of Somalia in support of our operations there. It joined the two guided-missile cruisers, USS Bunker Hill and USS Anzio, and the amphibious landing ship USS Ashland -- all are now supporting our ongoing operations in Somalia. The Ike had been flying missions into Afghanistan before it was moved to Somalia. It appears that we have no aircraft carrier right now flying missions into Afghanistan.

That would be the operation that we initially refused to comment on until after the governments of Somalia and Ethiopia bragged about our assistance. Then we said something about running two missions with an AC-130 gunship that may or may not have killed three high-value al-Qaida in Africa targets. Then we claimed that one of the three men had been killed in our attacks. Then we admitted that none of them had been killed but that we had "killed five to ten al-Qaida affiliates." The President of Somalia, who just managed to make it to the capital, Mogadishu, for the very first time thanks to our assistance and the assistance of the invading Ethiopian Army, bragged that we were flying daily helicopter gunship support missions against the Islamic opposition forces. I'm not sure that we have even admitted any helicopter gunship attacks yet, just the two AC-130 missions. Maybe the helicopter gunships have had their markings painted over? That way we don't have to admit they're ours unless one of them gets shot down.

What is obvious is that we and Ethiopia, which invaded in force, are providing military assistance to the U.N.-backed government of Somalia against the Islamic Courts Union guys who have been in control over there for a few years now. We say that all we are doing is going after three al-Qaida operatives who were responsible for blowing up our two embassies in Africa. Maybe that's true. Or maybe it's a bit more complicated than that? We sure have a lot of firepower over there for just three guys. No word on whether we have any special ops on the ground.

Which brings me to the real question du jour: How far along are we in our planned military campaigns against Iran and Syria??? That's the real question of the day right now.

We invaded an Iranian liaison office in Irbil, Iraq this morning and arrested five or six Iranian 'diplomats.' Iran says they're diplomats but we claim they are Iranian Revolutionary Guards who were aiding the insurgency in Iraq. We seized records and computers from the liaison office and took down the Iranian flag.





From the NYT:

American troops backed by attack helicopters and armored vehicles raided an Iranian diplomatic office in the dead of night early Thursday and detained as many as six of the Iranians working inside.

Interesting timing here, don't you think? This is not exactly new. This has been going on for the past three years now. It's sort of like when we aided Saddam in his war against Iran. Maybe the Iranians remember that and they're trying to get even. Anyway, Iran and Syria have been aiding the insurgency for a long time now, why are we making a big deal of it all of a sudden? Could it be that we are looking for an excuse to do what Bush has been planning to do for the past two years now -- attack Iran and Syria?

P.S. -- Could it be that Bush is doing this just to show his father who's boss? It was his father's best friend, James Baker, who recommended that we actually open diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria. In fact, Baker had already undertaken secret talks on his own before issuing the ISG report.

Don't forget, Bush named a Navy Admiral as the new CENTCOM commander! I believe the Horn of Africa is still under the control of CENTCOM. Rumsfeld announced the creation of a new Africa Command just before he left office. He said it would be established within two months. I'm not sure if it's up and running yet.

[Ninong]

I feel obliged to point out that a lack of planning didn't stop us from invading Iraq:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House spokesman Tony Snow on Friday disputed what he called a "rumor or urban legend" that President Bush made comments in his speech that were aimed at preparing the way for war with Iran and Syria.

Snow, speaking to reporters at the daily White House briefing, emphatically said there are no plans for war with Iran and Syria, and that the president wasn't saying that in his Wednesday night address, which focused on a new strategy to win the war in Iraq.

"What the president was talking about is defending American forces within Iraq and also doing what we can to disrupt networks that might be trying to convey weapons into battle theaters in Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis," Snow said.

There have been long-standing concerns over Iran's support of Shiite militants in Iraq and over Sunni insurgents crossing from Syria into Iraq to stage attacks in Anbar province and Baghdad.

Bush said in his speech that "succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria."

The president said those "regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq" and he singled out Iran for "providing material support for attacks on American troops."

[Poseidon]

Will someone wake me up when this nightmare is over? PLEASE.

I still see this as a No Win situation. See list below:

Afganistan
Iraq
Somalia
North Korea
Iran
Syria

How many other countries are going to be on the "list". We may be the only Super Power left, but it looks like we are going to be spread VERY thin.

[Ninong]

It is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that Bush is trying to provoke a wider conflict in the region. Within hours after his speech in which he threatened military action against Iran and Syria, the President authorized two separate Special Forces operations, one against the Iranian liaison office in Irbil and the other at the Irbil airport.

Iran and Iraq have both said that the liaison office, which has been present in Irbil for 10 years, was in the process of being upgraded to a consulate. Invading this building, taking down the Iranian flag, removing files and computers and arresting Iranian diplomats is a violation of the Vienna Convention, not that it matters considering how messed up everything else is over there right now. Bush can always redefine it or abrogate it. He's the Decider.

A second U.S. Special Forces raid was unsuccessfully conducted against Irbil airport but it was stopped when Kurdish Pesh Merga forces surrounded U.S. forces and threatened to open fire with their U.S.-provided weapons. U.S. forces tried to abduct additional people at the airport.

The Kurdish government treated the office as a working consulate. In fact, a number of countries have opened consulates in Irbil whose diplomats are accredited to the de facto independent Kurdish Regional Government, including Iran, Russia, Turkey, Britain, France, Germany, Czech Republic, and the Netherlands. The United States opened its consulate in Irbil and urged other countries to do the same. The United States then attacked and invaded the Iranian liaison office.

P.S. -- The offices of the Kurdish prime minister and Kurdish president expressed their "disturbance and condemnation" of the U.S. action in their capital. On Thursday, Condoleezza Rice warned Iran that the United States would not "stand idly by" if Tehran tries to disrupt Washington's renewed effort to stabilize Iraq. Speaking just hours after the Irbil raid, Rice said the U.S. was determined to crack down on Iran's "regional aggression."

[Old Man Of The Sea]

People, as from the time the main battle in Iraq had ended, I knew that the people of Iraq will not in the next ten years manage to stand on their own two feet and fight for their country for we are looking at a nation of people who mostly never known of the freedom of will power for they lived in fear for some 30 years and the difference their for us Americans is, we been fighting for the freedom of so many other nations and in it getting a bad rap about it.
I also knew that the type of fighting going on in Iraq was never ever going to end just because were supporting the people of Iraq for those car bombings and occasionally mass killings will continue for years too come. The only way those people will make a stand for themselves, if they ever the guts to do so, is that our Mr bush makes a deadline and stick too it and not as before when so many deadlines where adopted and they passed on by as if never spoken about.

In that sense, it is as if a joke that so many times bush had said that we will be there helping the Iraq people as long as their in the need for it. With those words, we can never see an end to this for yes, Terrorism will always remain thru out the world for many years to come and were facing a foe who will not come out and fight unless they can kill untold hundreds or thousands with only a few lives wasted of their own who yell out that god is great.

Before 9/11/01, I never heard much of anything of this bin laden person and all a sudden, just like that, this person would kill Americans and for what? To me it is only a hate war and nothing to do with our country beliefs. For it is really funny in away that during the USSR invasion, the US had helped bin laden with weapons to fight back, so what happen to made this go so wrong?

Now were in a war were sooner or later, bin laden will manage to strike for our country security cannot manage to learn of everything this man plan. It was unthinkable to what happened on 9-11, something that no civilized person would ever think of planning and yet this bin laden had that in planning for more then two years before the first tower was hit. Also if those people fight is only killing in such attacks, innocent victims who never did anything to them, so how can they say that their cause is justified? It is nothing short of being a terrorist act>

Even if bin laden were taking out of the picture, it will not end, this type of fight will go on and on for lord knows how long, perhaps forever for I do know that what is been happening over in Iraq will continue and that if and when our men and women are too pull out, those people will become panic-stricken. For its easy some their police jump with joy now while the US backs them, but when were gone, I not give so much odds on their ability to make their own stand alone.

I have nothing to do with politics and yet, not too long after the main fighting ended, I told my daughter that the type of fighting we hear about going on over there will always remain, that it will never just end just because were, our men and women are over there trying to bring stabilization to those people and again can never happen unless they themselves hold their heads up high and fight for what they want most, their freedom>

I don't agree with Bush plan to send another 21K+ troops, for it will only give the insurgents there more targets for their roadside bombs

[Ninong]

It's very difficult to figure out what we are doing over there right now. The mainstream media is virtually ignoring this story, probably because of the denials from the U.S. government, and the overseas anti-American blogs are filled with reports of hundreds of dead from U.S. airstrikes.

It appears that the U.S. ambassador to Kenya has admitted that we did not kill any of the three al-Qaida operatives we were supposedly going after. It is difficult to confirm how many air strikes we conducted. It seems we have admitted only two separate AC-130 missions that we claim resulted in the deaths of only "five to ten al-Qaida affiliates." No explanation of exactly how one becomes an al-Qaida affiliate. If you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, I guess you're an al-Qaida affiliate. Other news sources, including the British press, are reporting that we killed at least 70 innocent nomads in the Afmadow district near the border with Kenya. The nomads were bombed at night and during the day while searching for water sources. That would be in addition to the first "five to ten al-Qaida affiliates" that we admit killing in a different attack.

We have denied flying any helicopter gunship missions in Somalia in spite of the fact that Somali government officials have bragged that we were flying daily helicopter gunship missions in their support. Some eyewitnesses have reported that the helicopter gunships were unmarked.

The British press is reporting that we now have "boots on the ground" in Somalia trying to figure out exactly who we killed and what might have happened to the three bad guys we thought we were attacking.

There is more here than meets the eye and it will all come out sooner or later. Reminds me of our operations in Cambodia which the Nixon Administration lied about to the American people.

[reefheadhbyst]

if it was up to me just blow up iraq all they do is blow are troops up they ar now trying to attack iran and it goes on and on so nuke em i mean whut they did to us was worng with 9/11

[Ninong]

This is a true no-win situation. Even if we "win," it's not a victory. Our best hope now is that we can get out of the country in one piece without the entire region going up in flames.

Absolutely nothing has gone according to plan, using the word "plan" in the most generous sense since it is painfully obvious that the Bush Administration did not have a plan for post-Saddam Iraq. Our hand-picked political candidates were overwhelming defeated at the polls. How embarrassing can it be if your guy gets less than 2% of the vote?

Iraq is now headed by a guy who spent the last two decades in Iran. We have finally told him that he must disarm the militias. What a joke that is. We couldn't disarm the militias, what makes us think he can? Does anyone really think al-Maliki can disarm the Mahdi Army? Does anyone really think he even wants to?

Bush has made a big deal of saying that he has given al-Maliki certain benchmarks which he must meet if he expects to continue to receive our support. Wait a minute here! These are the same benchmarks that he hasn't met in the past. What makes us think he is any more likely to meet them now. Did Bush look into his eyes again? You know, like he did with Vladimir Putin before declaring what a swell fellow Mr. Putin is. Yeah, right!

Could it be that Bush knows that al-Maliki cannot disarm the militias or meet the benchmarks that have been set and this is nothing more than a cynical ploy to establish an excuse for us to withdraw?

Come to think of it, I believe Bush did say something about looking into al-Maliki's heart or some other such BS. It wouldn't be all that bad if Bush were merely incompetent but he is unbelievably arrogant and jaw-droppingly stupid to boot! This is typical of former drunks who have found Jesus! He is now certain about everything. Reality isn't going to get in his way. God has chosen him to lead this crusade and he's going to do it even if Laura and Barney are the only ones remaining in his camp. By the way, he actually said that -- the reference to Laura and Barney.

There is no hope for a united Iraq if the people themselves do not want to be united. The government is divided against itself. Each of the major political parties is back by a separate militia. In fact, al-Maliki was a compromise candidate because of the fact that he didn't have his own militia behind him like most of the other players. Now that he has pissed off Moqtadr al-Sadr, al-Sadr has pulled his 30 members of Parliament and five cabinet ministers out of the government. They are on vacation, along with a large number of other members of parliament. Parliament hasn't met in several weeks now because they can't get a quorum together.

You can't force democracy on Iraq. That much should be obvious by now. The Shia want to form a theocratic government similar to Iran's. They are ignoring the new constitution and enforcing Sharia law locally. Many of these people are religious fundamentalists. They're just like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in believing that their sacred texts are the unerring word of God. They are going around killing people in the name of God. God wants them to smite their enemies and that's what they're doing.

You can't unify a country unless you can unify the hearts and minds of the people. These people do NOT want to be unified! The religious fringe on both sides want nothing more than to defeat the other side. The Kurds are using us to gain their independence and the Shiites are trying to use us to defeat the Sunnis. And what happens if we actually do "defeat" the Sunnis? Ha! Don't forget that 85% of the Muslims in the world are Sunni!!! All of the Shia are concentrated in southern Lebanon, Iran and Iraq. Do we think that we won't have more problems if we allow the Shiites to take over completely in Iraq? That's why military operations are so counterproductive. We need them to arrive at a political solution and right now they aren't even trying to do that.

We have set something in motion in Iraq. Only time will tell what that something is. If we're extremely lucky, it will be confined to Iraq.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by reefheadhbyst

... so nuke em i mean whut they did to us was worng with 9/11

I suppose you mean nuke Saudi Arabia, right? You can't possibly mean nuke Iraq or Iran since neither country was involved in 9/11. Most of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. None of them were Iraqi or Iranian.

They were all member's of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida, which is financed mainly by Wahhabi extremists in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden himself is a Saudi, although the kingdom has disowned him. His deputy, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian. Maybe we should nuke Cairo?

There is NO connection between Iraq and 9/11. That was just a fairytale put out by the neo-cons in the Bush Administration.

Saddam Hussein was a bad dude but he had nothing to do with 9/11. The several hundred al-Qaida operatives that are in Iraq now were drawn there by our invasion. They were not there before when Saddam was running the show.



P.S. --

[reefheadhbyst]

NUKE THEM ALL there A pian in the ass

[reefheadhbyst]

Pain* its them or us they all started it

[Old Man Of The Sea]

In Iraq, were no true mission to really accomplish for it reminds me of the North Korean and Vietnam wars for unlike in War World II, there they had a mission, too get too Berlin and the war would come to an end. I left behind so many men I known for years in the infested waters and muddy fields of Vietnam laying dead or dying. For as in the N. Korean War, Gen. McCarthy was taking out, away from his command, because he had spoken out about it. For it seems as if one was too open their mouth about how the battle plan is truly going, they get either pulled away or sent into the main battle lines to become history themselves. least it seemed that way back then.

I do believe that our country not tell us everything that much need to know facts in for us to truly give a voice of opinion to the war planning for I too at the start, even knowing it wouldn't end even in ten years had favored to go into Iraq. I too am now sorry of it for no weapons of mast destruction were ever found, and if their weren't any, why then was Sadam playing games as if he had them?

For it was his own actions that giving me the decision to back Bush 100% to go into Iraq along with voice tapes that they were acting as if trying to hide these things from the inspectors.

Being over there will make no difference to something else ever happening here in the States

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Old Man Of The Sea

For as in the N. Korean War, Gen. McCarthy was taking out, away from his command, because he had spoken out about it.

Gen. MacArthur was relieved of his command for open insubordination. He was determined to expand the war into China. Generals, even five star generals, do not get to decide foreign policy. It was an unfortunate end to an otherwise outstanding career.

Vietnam was a mistake from the beginning. It was a mistake started by Eisenhower and continued by Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. It's a pity Kennedy was assassinated because chances are he would have pulled out of Vietnam.

During World War II, the Japanese invaded Indochina, expelling the colonial French rulers. Towards the end of the war, I believe it was in early 1945, the Viet Minh expelled the Japanese occupiers and declared an independent Vietnam. The French were not happy with this turn of events. They wanted to reclaim their colony. Ho Chi Minh petitioned Truman to recognize the new independent government of Vietnam but under pressure from France, we refused.

This was a mistake. Under Eisenhower, we supplied France militarily and covered most of the cost of their operations against the Viet Minh, which was supported by China. France at the time, for obvious reasons, was broke!

The United States has a history of nearsightedness when it comes to foreign policy. Under Eisenhower, we deposed the democratically elected government of Iran and installed the brutal Shah, Reza Pahlavi. What a piece of crap he turned out to be. Is it any wonder the Iranians have it in for us? Eisenhower did that because the new Iranian president was threatening to nationalize British oil interests in Iran. At that time Iran was thought to have the world's largest oil reserves.

Under Eisenhower, we refused to recognize that people who have been occupied by a European power, might want to get free just for the hell of it. In Vietnam, we refused to accept the idea that the people might want to govern themselves. If they chose a socialist or even a communist form of government, that was for them to decide. In those days, under the Dulles brothers, we adopted the Domino Theory of containment of communism. Communism was seen as a monolithic worldwide movement and we were determined to fight it whenever and whereever it popped up. So we aligned ourselves with the colonial French occupiers against the Vietnamese people because they were supported by Mao. Actually, they weren't supported by Mao until after his 1949 revolution succeeded in China.

The French were incredibly stupid in setting up their main base at Dien Bien Phu. It was a completely indefensible position surrounded by hills where you could set up artillery to pound away at them. The French were surrounded by the Viet Minh. They begged us to come to their aid militarily but we refused. I remember seeing the TV news reports at the time (1954) showing planes dropping supplies into Dien Bien Phu by parachute. They held out for two months.

A cease-fire was negotiated by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union. Under that agreement, French troops would be given free passage out of Dien Bien Phu and out of Vietnam. Actually, the French left all of French Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos). A key component of that agreement was that the people of Vietnam, north and south, would be allowed to hold nationwide elections within six months. We agreed to that condition but we later changed our minds and backed the bogus South Vietnamese government against the Viet Minh because it was painfully obvious that the people of Vietnam, north and south, would have elected Ho Chi Minh.

We were doomed from the start in Vietnam. We were supporting a corrupt government that did not have the support of the people. The Viet Cong were the South Vietnamese insurgents who lived right there in South Vietnam. They were fighting against the corrupt South Vietnamese government and after we started sending "counter-insurgency advisors" over there, they began fighting us, too. There was no way we could ever win in Vietnam because we did not have the "hearts and minds" of the people. After a few years we realized this and started one of our ridiculous campaigns to win the "hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people.

We had no business getting involved in France's former colonies just because they were going communist. I hate even thinking about Vietnam because it's too painful, even though I was already out of the military before then. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was faked. The casualty numbers were faked. We always grossly inflated the number of enemy casualties. Nixon and Kissinger lied to the American people, constantly! About almost everything. They lied about Cambodia. Outright lied! And we now know that Kissinger had promised the North Vietnamese as early as 1972 that we had no intention of defeating them militarily and only wanted to leave and have the South Vietnamese government survive for a couple of months or so after our departure so that we could save face. We lost tens of thousands of troops after that for nothing. Absolutely nothing! We had already committed to giving up. In the end, we barely got out.

[Old Man Of The Sea]

Ninong, I not remember each thing when they happened on their exact dates, the thing be, Gen. MacArthur was relieved of his command and that they only called it as insubordination. The other thing im sure was that he was denied to ever make that point of view known to the press, for your any idea in what would happen? It would had caused a scandal, that was something that Eisenhower didn't want for it would had caused the whole country to separate on two sides and this would then might had made Eisenhower even less popular then bush is right now. We had no objectives to reach in that war, as in the Vietnam War as well.

I do remember under Kennedy that he was trying hard to bring an end to it, but it never happen> I do remember the stories of the french when was over there and that they where butchered in the worst way>

"Communist form of government" That is what we seen from most of the captive weaponry and still yet, I couldn't argue why we were there, but to follow my orders giving to me. For yes, many the men had thoughts of their own in what was really the issue over their and for most, they were wrong of their opinions, in why. Myself, I wasn't all to sure in what was the real deal there other then that we were there and loosing many a good men.

The thing I said on why Gen MacArthur was really relieved of his command, is the true reason behind all what you might had heard following afterwards in what you might had readied in the papers or heard on the radio. And im sure, just as then is still happening today with the bush administration. Much is never told to us in what is the real deal>

I see you know what happened over there, I am responding to you as I read your own response>

For right now, our guys are over there in Iraq and dying just as well, and today im asking myself, for what? When we are gone out of Iraq, the people over there if not right now will be bad mouthing us, in that they hate the US as well and once that happens, Iraq will become no better off then it was under Sadam, that is why I think of the situation over there.

So we have our young men dying over there in trying to give those people their freedom, and yet to me, in all of what I can see from the beginning of all this, those people have no backbone to stand and fight as well possibly to die for what one believes in is something they know nothing about. I still say a number of them that show right now that they are standing with the US in battling the insurgents and I still say that once their on their own, they will have no backbone for it.

It was just like when Bush giving them a deadline of six months to do it all for themselves, that I told my daughter that not even in six years will they ever manage to do that for some senators called the Iraq leader, something else, im sorry I not remember what, but it do however labels him as not the right man for the job.

Outright lied! ?? what makes you think that this isn't happening right now?
Its just like a number of times they said that the Iraq soldiers did the shooting and captures made with no US help, I not believe this ever happened in that way, that it was all the US, all the way.

"In the end, we barely got out"

I remembered when leaving Vietnam or trying to get out that many choppers were even ditched> I thought that it was my worst nightmare>

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Old Man Of The Sea

Ninong, I not remember each thing when they happened on their exact dates, the thing be, Gen. MacArthur was relieved of his command and that they only called it as insubordination. The other thing im sure was that he was denied to ever make that point of view known to the press, for your any idea in what would happen? It would had caused a scandal, that was something that Eisenhower didn't want for it would had caused the whole country to separate on two sides and this would then might had made Eisenhower even less popular then bush is right now. We had no objectives to reach in that war, as in the Vietnam War as well.

Dwight Eisenhower took office in January 1953. Gen. Douglas MacArthur was relieved of his command by President Harry Truman in April 1951. After it became obvious that the U.N. forces were defeating the North Koreans, the Chinese sent in tens of thousands of "volunteers." MacArthur wanted to expand the war into an all-out assault against China. Truman didn't want the war to expand to China because he feared, possibly correctly, that the Soviet Union would enter on the side of China. We would have been involved in a land war in Asia against China and the Soviet Union. At that time their combined armies were well over 10 million strong. We would almost certainly have been forced to use nuclear weapons. In fact, MacArthur had already requested that nuclear weapons be put at his disposal in South Korea. Don't forget that the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb in 1949 and in 1950 they signed a mutual defense pact with China in which they agreed to defend China with any means necessary, including atomic bombs. (P.S. -- We exploded our first hydrogen bomb in November 1952 and the Soviets exploded their first hydrogen bomb in August 1953.)

Truman informed MacArthur of his intention to open cease-fire negotiations. MacArthur was furious because he wanted a full-scale war against China. You have to remember that this was a United Nations mandated "police action" to drive the North Koreans out of South Korea. There was no authorization to go beyond the 38th parallel, the dividing line between North and South Korea, much less cross the Yalu River into China. MacArthur was insisting on permission to bomb supplies, troops and aircraft in China with conventional weapons and he wanted to deploy nuclear weapons in Korea. When he learned of Truman's plans to open cease-fire negotiations, he issued his own ultimatum to China in an attempt to undercut the negotiations and provoke a full-scale conflict with China. This is not in any way secret. It was all quite open at the time. MacArthur held press conferences to issue his own policy statements that contradicted the policies of the White House. It was open insubordination and he knew it.

P.S. -- The mandate passed the United Nations Security Council because the Soviet ambassador had stormed out in protest and wasn't there to veto it.

[Ninong]

According to ABC News:

A small number of CIA officers and U.S. Delta Force and Navy Seal units operating out of Djibouti are still on the ground in southern Somalia, hunting for three fugitive al Qaeda operatives who were the targets of failed U.S. air strikes last week, according to a U.S. military source.

The CIA has taken the lead in the hunt for the three missing al Qaeda suspects, "Abu Talha al Sudani," "Haroon Fazlul" and Kenyan "Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan," who are wanted by the U.S. government for their roles in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania as well as attacks on Israeli tourists in Mombassa in 2002.

[Ninong]

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - The deployment of the USS John C. Stennis to the Middle East will put two U.S. aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region for the first time since the 2003 Iraq invasion, in a clear response to Iran ‘s aggressive posture in the region.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday that Iran and other U.S. adversaries believe the U.S. is vulnerable in Iraq, where the Pentagon is preparing to send more than 20,000 additional troops as part of a new security plan that envisions a crackdown on Iranian-backed militias.

"This demonstrates our resolve to do what we can to bring security and stability to the region," Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy U.S. Navy‘s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain said Tuesday.

U.S. diplomats, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice , have been touring the region to shore up American credibility. The United States‘ Arab allies are dismayed over the chaos in Iraq, while a resurgent Iran — the Arab world‘s centuries-old rival — is supporting militants across the region.

The Stennis strike group, which was previously in line to deploy to the Pacific, will augment another Navy task force in Mideast waters led by the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, Aandahl said.

After departing Tuesday from its homeport of Bremerton, Wash., the Stennis will stop in San Diego to pick up an air wing of more than 80 planes, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, the Navy said.

The Stennis could also shore up air cover for U.S. and NATO ground troops in Afghanistan , now relying on about 20 ground-based warplanes after the Eisenhower was sent to the Somali coast.

In Brussels on Monday, Gates indicated that Iran‘s perception of U.S. vulnerability in the region was part of the reason the Pentagon needs to dispatch the Stennis and the Patriot missiles.

Patriots defend against short-range missiles of the type that Iran could use to hit U.S. bases in the Gulf. The Pentagon has not said exactly where the Patriots will be based.

"They‘re not trying to pick a fight" with Iran, Alani said. "But if Iran makes any mistakes, the U.S. will deal with them."

Iran has denounced the Patriot deployment as part of U.S. plan to turn Arab countries into the front line of defense for Israel .

In December, Tehran‘s top national security official, Ali Larijani, asked Arab leaders to shut down U.S. military bases in the Gulf and instead join a security alliance with Iran. Gulf leaders have shown no inclination to give up their U.S. security umbrella.

The Stennis and its 3,200 sailors lead a strike group consisting of the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam, three Navy destroyers — the USS O‘Kane, Preble and Paul Hamilton — the submarine USS Key West, the guided-missile frigate USS Rentz, as well as the supply ship USNS Bridge, the Navy said. Washington will keep two carriers in the Middle East "as long as the situation demands it," Aandahl said. A typical carrier deployment lasts six months. The United States maintains nearly 40,000 troops in Gulf countries other than Iraq, including about 25,000 in Kuwait, 6,500 in Qatar, 3,000 in Bahrain, 1,300 in the United Arab Emirates and a few hundred in Oman and Saudi Arabia, according to figures from the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

[Ninong]

The only reason we would need Patriot missile batteries in the Middle East would be to defend against an Iranian missile attack. I hope they're more effective now than they were during the Gulf War in 1991.

It's interesting to note that President Bush's good buddy, Vladimir Putin, has defied him and is rushing delivery of 29 new Tor-M1 Russian air defense missile systems to Iran. It's a $700 million contract. According to a Russian blog, they started arriving in Iran last month.

Bush is determined to attack Iran and Putin is determined to do everything he can to either prevent it or make it very costly for the U.S. I guess this means they won't be sharing any rides around the dacha from now on.

According to that same Russian blog, we now have four nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf region and one of them supposedly bumped into a Japanese tanker recently. Some Russian admiral is accusing our submarine commanders of being careless in checking out what's above them before surfacing. If I were a Russian admiral, I don't think I would give safety lessons to any other countries on how to operate submarines. On the other hand, we did surface under that Japanese fishing boat several years back, killing a bunch of Japanese fishermen and students. We were giving a demonstration to some visiting V.I.P.'s who were onboard.

So it looks like it's full steam ahead as far as the Iran gambit is concerned. Which explains why we have an admiral taking over as CENTCOM commander. I believe I pointed that out last week. Not much time left to get this done while Tony Blair is still in office. I believe he steps down in early May, so that leaves us only about three months to do it. Looks like late March or early April, depending on what we can stir up between now and then and how long it takes us to get everybody on station. I wonder if the Israelis will be involved in any way this time?

[Ninong]

Looks like the information on that Russian blog was correct because Pravda has just confirmed it. Don't bother reading any of the other crap on Pravda, it's worse than reading the National Enquirer. I only check them out every now and then for laughs.