Pearl Harbor Ships Head For Middle East

[struggle4progress]

POSTED: 12:43 pm HST January 26, 2007
UPDATED: 1:45 pm HST January 26, 2007

PEARL HARBOR, Hawaii -- Nearly 500 Navy sailors with two Pearl Harbor-based aircraft carriers deployed on Friday to the Persian Gulf.

The two guided missile destroyers -- the USS Paul Hamilton and the USS O'Kane -- will be a part of the USS Stennis Aircraft Carrier Strike Group ...

http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/news/10854572/detail.html

Early related thread:
Bremerton-Based Stennis Deploys To Gulf < Tue Jan-16-07 05:56 PM >
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2691259&mesg_id=2691259

[Junkdrawer]

1. What a headline...Two Aircraft Carriers left their Freudian Slip today...

:evilgrin:

[ohio2007]

24. not bad. I might pinch that one and use elsewhere while cruising the net

Two Fast Frigates left their Freudian Slip bound for points unknown

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bonito]

4. .

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger

[Ian David]

5. You can't pin this on Israel. This is OUR fault. n/t

[bonito]

6. I agree, we let it happen

being naive I guess.

[struggle4progress]

7. CVW-9 joins Stennis for deployment

Friday, January 26, 2007
By MC2 Christopher Gethings - USS John C. Stennis Public Affairs
Strike group begins transit toward 5th Fleet

USS JOHN C. STENNIS, At Sea -- Elements of the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) Carrier Strike Group left San Diego, Jan. 20, after picking up Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9, and began steaming west toward the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations.

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which left its Bremerton, Wash., homeport Jan. 16, spent one day in port on-loading the air wing, and departed San Diego with the guided missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54) and guided missile destroyer USS Preble (DDG 88) ...

Stennis and its strike group are scheduled to enter 5th Fleet's area of operation and provide support to U.S. and coalition forces operating there ...

http://www.navycompass.com/news/newsview.asp?c=204594

[Sirveri]

8. CVW-9 Is just the aircraft that operate off the carrier.

It would be incredibly stupid to just send a carrier out without any aircraft on board. The aircraft generally fly off and land at a NAS (Naval Air Station) when the ship pulls into port to split the assets up. They fly back out to the carrier once it leaves port since a carrier is pretty much useless without the aircraft it carries.

[struggle4progress]

13. Bush isn't threatening Iran because of some Israeli cabal: he's threatening Iran ..

.. because US foreign policy is largely about securing foreign resources for US corporate interests: oil being a major resource, US policy towards the Middle East has largely been driven by oil company interests. That's why our government has propped up one corrupt dictator after another the region -- and it's why there's a constant scream of rage against countries like Iran, where the US-backed dictator got his butt kicked out. If there were no corporate interest in regional resources, no rightwing talking heads would get paid to talk about Iran -- no matter how bad the situation there got.

[aquart]

15. Excuse me?

EXCUSE ME????

I think there are board standards that prevent me from saying what really needs to be said right now.

It isn't even midnite and the anti-semites have crawled out of their filthy hole.

[badgervan]

16. Pro-USA

Is it "anti-semite" to say that the protection of the United States is on a different plane/level of defense than protection of the country called Israel? I am no "anti-semite". I am a Navy veteran who served to protect MY country - not someone else's. Every time a commentor points out the difference between protection of our USA, and 100% protection of Israel, they get called "anti-semite". When I criticise Leiberman for being too "war happy", too protective of Israel at the USA's expense, I get called an "anti-semite". No, I am not "anti-semitic" - I am pro American. Period. Don't you think it's high time that Israel fends more for itself - after 50+ years of Big Brother backing up their every action ( both good and bad )? Would you start WWIII because of the need to protect Israel?

[peacetalksforall]

17. I wonder how many times you have called me an anti-semite

when I object to those in Israel who war monger with our war mongers as a business and as an imperialistic agenda. We've come a long way from the days when we started helping Israel survive. I'm with the peace seekers and peace lovers in Israel. I resent the way Palelstinians are treated by Israel. I no longer buy the victim slant when the Palestinians go year after year having to live as they do.

I've learned and seen too much in the last couple of years. I deeply resent what is going on at the top levels of our top departments of our U.S. government. It appears AIPAC resides within these departments. They're are people in our government who are working for Israel as there primary job and I resent it.

My problem is with current Israel policy leaders who walk lock-step with our PNAC leaders. It's Israel policy, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with the citizens who seek peace.

I think you would apologize to me if you knew my history.

Others who have replied to what I have written are correct - Israel isn't the only reason our leaders are taking us into Iran. You are wrong - I am not an anti-semite and I guess you will be calling me one as long as either one of us post here.

Heroes - Feingold, Wellstone, Judge Frankel and a bunch of others.

Non-heroes - Ledeen, Perle, and a bunch of others.

[mallard]

28. Re: watch out what you say about ...

"Others who have replied to what I have written are correct - Israel isn't the only reason our leaders are taking us into Iran."


It's still a defning reason, though, and I thoroughly support your perspective. The incursion of Israel lobbyists would be testy enough even if they're agenda didn't involve huge and unnecessary war with no apparent resolution. I'm also tired of the labels applied to people who simply want this form of insider governance put to a stop before the damage gets much worse.

PNAC, AIPAC and hard supporters definitely arranged this destructive new war program and did so using outright deceptions. Many who want to protect Israel's dignity could help out a lot more by pushing on the other end instead of throwing moral judgements at critics of the corrupt political aparatus that creates war and violent ethnic conflict.

[badgervan]

35. Feingold

I am with you on the heroes and non-heroes. In fact, Russ Feingold is my Senator; I have worked to get him elected every electoral cycle for many years now. Wellstone also a personal hero of mine. But the power of the Israeli lobby is a whole different subject than a few good congressional reps. How does AIPAC stay so powerful, and so behind the scenes as they literally call the shots for our government under the bush/cheney dictatorship? I just want the facts out front for all to see and ponder - before we invade Iran on some trumped up charges.

[fNord]

3. "I just wanted to nail home how bad this Iran thing i'm doing is"--Bush n/t

:eyes:

[Sirveri]

9. This article is very badly written.

Pearl doesn't have carriers, those 500 sailors are on destroyers which are escorts for the carriers. Carriers have a crew of 3000, 4000 with aircrew. Either way, I'm not going to worry unless they send a third carrier. If you see 3 with a fourth on the way though... Well that's a bit 'excessive'. Then again, with Iraqi air bases 2 carriers might be enough with the combination of shore based aircraft.

[struggle4progress]

10. Well before the November elections, observers began to predict a US build-up in the Persian Gulf ..

.. as part of preparations for an attack on Iran. The Eisenhower group set off in October. In December, it was announced the Stennis deployment would be accelerated. Meanwhile, the warmongers float every possible trial balloon regarding Iran.

Aircraft Carrier Headed to Persian Gulf
Thursday, January 4, 2007
(01-04) 07:31 PST WASHINGTON, (AP) --
... Pentagon officials said last month that the extra ships would serve as a show of force to Iran ... The aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower left its Norfolk, Va., port in September and is already in the gulf region ...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/01/04/national/w073127S23.DTL

[Sirveri]

23. The Eisenhower relieved the previous CV on station.

While a CV can be supplied food and jet fuel by tenders and makes their own water, you don't want to leave a bunch of sailors stranded out in the middle of the ocean seperated from their families for more than a year, generally not more than 9 months. Especially when you have 12 carriers sitting around to rotate. Since we pretty much permanently have a CV out in the Gulf region, you can't show people you're pissed off about something over there unless you send a second.

[struggle4progress]

32. Uh ... eventually, perhaps ... but first they had "exercises" with three or four strike group

[Ghost Dog]

22. Scott Ritter, writing in The Nation this week, says at one point:

<snip>

As things currently stand, the Bush Administration, emboldened with a vision of the unitary executive unprecedented in our nation's history, believes it has all of the legal authority it requires when it comes to engaging Iran militarily. The silence of Congress following the President's decision to dispatch a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf has been deafening. The fact that a third carrier battle group (the USS Ronald Reagan) will probably join these two in the near future has also gone unnoticed by most, if not all, in Congress.

/...

(wherever his info comes from...)

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070205&s=ritter

[leftchick]

27. This is the very first I have heard about the USS RR!

Is there anymore confirmation on that. I don't doubt Scott though. He has been right for years now on everything.

:scared:

[Ghost Dog]

29. First I've heard, also. No confirmation so far,

though I'm sure careful eyes and ears on this board (as well as elsewhere) will be paying attention.

BTW, do we still expect that the kind of (air, not ground) strike that may be in the offing would require preferably a full moon? I'd have thought, the opposite, somehow...

Any input on this, please?

[hang a left]

31. THe next full moon in February 1

Although I have read where they start their strikes during a new moon.

[ohio2007]

34. No moonlight was the way Gulf War I air war kicked off.

GWII ? shock and awe required no aircrew's in harms way.

[Ghost Dog]

38. Ok. This looks like confirmation (USS Ronald Reagan to Persian Gulf):

(lala_rawraw/REUTERS/Fred Greaves): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x59374#59453
#

Reuters - Sat Jan 27, 1:37 PM ET
The aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan passes two fishermen in their small boat as it leaves for its second deployment in a year from North Island Naval Air Station in Coronado, California January 27, 2007. The Reagan is headed to the Persian Gulf to support war efforts in Iraq. REUTERS/Fred Greaves (UNITED STATES)

[ohio2007]

33. We still have nine other carriers

they get rotated in and out like clockwork.
I think we still have a total of 12 until atwo more get retired .

[Sirveri]

45. We have 12 but three are getting a bit old.

And it shows since they break down all the time, 2 of them are conventional as well which means that they can't sit around out there as long as a nuclear powered carrier could. Then there are the carriers that are undergoin major shipyard overhauls, I think George Washington just got out and another just went in to take its place.

[kitty1]

11. An off the cuff, but somewhat disturbing comment on CNN....

regarding the Stennis. On a program I was watching about a week ago there was an interview with one of the crewmen who was being deployed to the gulf. The show was depicting the lives of those in the Navy going off to sea. Near the end of the interview he was commenting on the Stennis, and made the remark that She was combat ready. It was the way he said it. Really accentuating this statement.
It probably doesn't mean anything, but I couldn't help but get the impression that these guys were getting ready for a possible showdown. It made me feel a bit uneasy

[daleo]

12. A sunken carrier would certainly whip up war fever

"Remember the Stennis" would be the war cry to go all out against Iran. I fear these ships are being put in harm's way on purpose, to stir up an event.

[kitty1]

14. My brother-in-law who's in the Cdn Navy, was on the stennis....

about 5 years ago during exercises in the Gulf region. It's quite the impressive vessel from what I hear.

[ohio2007]

25. Yes, Nimitz class carriers are a sight to 'sea'

It's a never ending circle of deployment,return,work up,deploy,return,repair,workup etc.

Yet, the normal movement of carriers have been treated as breaking news .

[ohio2007]

30. They always deploy as 'combat ready'

It's about attitude. It's what they train and do work ups for.

[Bicoastal]

18. Whose head is it, anyway?

And why is Pearl Harbor doing the Middle East's dirt work? Do we get some sort of trade benefit from head-shipping?

(Sorry, couldn't resist when I saw the headline.)

[shanti]

19. oh shite

:scared:

[IndianaGreen]

20. The Decider, aka Decision Maker, is not happy with only losing two wars

He wants to add a third war to his growing record of death and destruction.

Impeachment or a coup is the only thing that can stop this madman!

[kiwilover]

21. Only Two Years Left

There is only two years left to fulfill the PNAC vision. Or get things so screwed up that the Bush regime declares a national emergency!

[ohio2007]

26. then a Hudna..

...a cease fire.
but imo, the fire will continue to burn as long as the oil addiction remains.

[roamer65]

36. BBC: Russia is demanding our government explain reason for ME buildup.

Russia, can you say "Attack on Iran"?

[IndianaGreen]

37. If we had a Soviet Union we wouldn't be in this mess we find ourselves in!

The Soviets would have restrained America's actions in the world, and there wouldn't be a war in Iraq or an upcoming war in Iran, and Israel wouldn't have gotten away with bombing Lebanon.

[hack89]

40. Yea - the fall of the Soviet Union was a disaster for world peace!

:eyes: :eyes:

[C_U_L8R]

39. So Bush is battling insurgents with Guided Missiles ????

Where is the congressional oversight to stop this madman???

[crickets]

41. Good question

Just how much money was "in the pipeline" that he can keep sending ships to the Gulf? When is Congress going to step up with more than a few "you can't attack Iran" speeches?

[caligirl]

42. Not aircraft carriers-- they are destroyers.

[Matilda]

43. Bush Is About to Attack Iran: Why Can't Americans See it?

Globalresearch.ca publishes many interesting articles on military and
naval manouevres - and this is dated 27th January.

"The American public and the US Congress are getting their backs up about the Bush Regime's determination to escalate the war in Iraq. A massive protest demonstration is occurring in Washington DC today, and Congress is expressing its disagreement with Bush's decision to intensify the war in Iraq.

This is all to the good. However, it misses the real issue – the Bush Regime's looming attack on Iran.

(snip)

Everything is in place for an attack on Iran. Two aircraft carrier attack forces are deployed to the Persian Gulf, US attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other countries on Iran's borders, Patriot anti-missile defense systems are being moved to the Middle East to protect oil facilities and US bases from retaliation from Iranian missiles, and growing reams of disinformation alleging Iran's responsibility for the insurgency in Iraq are being fed to the gullible US media."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20RO20070127&articleId=4604


This article was written by Paul Craig Roberts, who was part of the
Reagan Administration, so I guess he's not likely to be ultra-progressive.

Interesting. And scary.

[OneBlueSky]

44. those SOBs are about to launch World War III in the Middle East . . .

and no one seems to care . . . why isn't the Congress meeting non-stop and passing resolutions PROHIBITING BushCo from attacking Iran without prior Congressional consent? . . . these are, by and large, not stupid people, and surely they can see what's going on . . . WHY aren't they doing something to stop it? . . . WHY? . . .