Oh lord, here we go!

'2 US aircraft carriers headed for Gulf'

Two additional United States naval aircraft carriers are heading to the Gulf and the Red Sea, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Kuwait Times.

Kuwait began finalizing its "emergency war plan" on being told the vessels were bound for the region.

The US Navy would neither confirm nor deny that carriers were en route. US Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Command located in Bahrain said it could not comment due to what a spokesman termed "force-protection policy."

While the Kuwaiti daily did not name the ships it believed were heading for the Middle East, The Media Line's defense analyst said they could be the USS Theodore Roosevelt and the USS Ronald Reagan.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

This is all over Google, but it appears to come from Mideast sources.

That doesn't mean it's wrong, but I don't like the sound of this. :hide:

:dunce:

I don't think any of us would be surprised if an 'incident' happened just before the election.

I went to a lecture by Scott Ritter last winter and he predicted that it would either be in June or early fall that action was taken against Iran.

I just did a quick Google and there was this: (Ironically, also from the Kuwait Times)

Iran warns on Hormuz, tests weapon

TEHRAN: Iran announced yesterday that it has tested a new weapon capable of sinking ships nearly 300 km away, and reiterated threats to close a strategic waterway at the mouth of the Arabian Gulf if attacked. Meanwhile, the six powers holding nuclear talks with Tehran threatened yesterday to pursue new punitive action against Iran if it does not accept their offer of incentives to freeze uranium enrichment operations.

Up to 40 percent of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage along Iran's southern coast. Tehran has warned it could shut down tanker traffic there if attacked - a move likely to send oil prices skyrocketing. The warnings came two days after a deadline expired for Iran to respond to incentives from the six world powers, offered in exchange for a promise to curb its uranium enrichment.

Britain said Iran would face new UN sanctions unless it gives a response by today to the offer, a British Foreign Office spokesman said. "We will be disappointed if there (is) no response to the E3 proposals by tomorrow," the spokesman said, referring to proposals formally put to Tehran by Britain, France and Germany. "We will have no choice but to ask the UN to proceed with further sanctions. ~snip~

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=ODQwMDk2Njk3

And another headline where Kuwait was "chiding" Iran over their threat to shut down the Strait.

But my question -- weren't we working on something that would allow blockading of the Strait? (For some reason, it seemed to be a big hit with the Dems). If so, do you think that was in response to a possible scenario like this?

Also -- I quickly checked Rutgers and the BBC, but didn't see any reference to 2 carriers heading that way. :shrug:

WTF??

<snip>
So with the case for attacking Iran in tatters, why are congressional Democrats taking up the cause?

House Resolution 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, is moving quickly through the House. The resolution urges the Bush administration to prohibit the export to Iran of refined petroleum products, impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran," and to prohibit all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program from travel outside the country.

Imposing "stringent inspection requirements" would amount to a naval blockade, many believe, and thus constitute an act of war. At the very least, it would be perceived by Iranians of all political persuasions as a hostile act, further marginalizing moderate voices, unifying the country behind the most belligerent leaders, and bolstering the argument of those within Iran who are pushing for the rapid development of nuclear weapons as a defense against U.S. attack.

Why are 96 House Democrats (along with 111 House Republicans) co-sponsoring this resolution? Aren't these the Democrats who rode into majorities in both houses on public revulsion against war in the Middle East?
<snip>

http://www.yesmagazine.org/svgblog/2008/06/are-congressional-democrats-leading.html

I don't know what the Dems are doing?????:spank:

was endorsed so heartily by the Dems. WHAT could they know that would make them support -- CO-SPONSOR -- such a potentially dangerous Resolution? (Great find, by the way -- that's the one I was thinking about.)

So am I getting this right?

1. Six world powers told Tehran to knock off their uranium enrichment programs (offering "incentives) if they comply.
2. Tehran said Fuck You, and oh, by the way, we've just tested a new weapon that can sink any ships you send in here.
3. Britian, France and Germany have said, well, you'd better answer by tomorrow, or we'll ask the UN to "proceed with further sanctions."

(Interesting that it was Britian, France, and Germany -- where are we in this "diplomatic" process? Why don't we want to be involved?)

Now we hear that two carriers are underway -- in anticipation of problems if Tehran doesn't agree? And will we be able to do this "legally" by passing this Resolution? :tinfoilhat:

This whole story stinks and it's really disturbing.

:pals:

Our msm is too busy worrying about the Clintons to pay any attention to this.

How long have we all been saying that we wouldn't put it past this administration to start another war in order for the repugs to win in November, or worse- to stay in office.

I don't like the sound of this at all.

oh shit!