PDA

View Full Version : Media Blackout: The Armada in the Gulf


US Blues
09-03-2008, 07:36 AM
Media Blackout: The Armada in the Gulf
by Gary North



The media have covered such recent events as the Olympics, the selection of Joe Biden as the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, and what John McCain is going to do about the selection of the Vice President of the Republican Party. Now the media will focus on the national convention of the Democratic Party.

The most important news for the month of August was the fact that President Bush has quietly sent the largest armada into the Persian Gulf since the Iraq war began in 2003, when there were six carrier groups. This is a huge number of ships to be concentrated in one location in peacetime.

This story has been completely ignored by the news media all over the West. The only coverage is from special-interest websites. It was only on Saturday morning, August 23, that I learned what was going on.

I spent most of Saturday in an attempt to verify the basic story. Some of this story is easily verifiable. Other parts of it are circumstantial, but nevertheless compelling. I posted the story on my site late in the afternoon. You can read the details here.

Here is the basic story. Two aircraft carrier task forces, the Abraham Lincoln and the Peleliu, are already in the Persian Gulf. This is verifiable on the Websites of the carriers. A third task force, the Iwo Jima, was dispatched to the Gulf on August 22. This has been verified by a naval source. Two more – the Theodore Roosevelt and the Ronald Reagan – are said to be sailing to the Gulf, but I was unable to verify this from official sources. The Jerusalem Post reported this, as did at least one Egyptian newspaper cited by the Post. The Arab world is aware of all this. Western audiences are not.

We do know from naval sources that in July, the Theodore Roosevelt was involved in joint naval maneuvers with the French Navy. Think about this for a moment. When was the last time you read of joint naval operations between the United States Navy and the French Navy? In 2007, in the North Arabian Sea.

Third-party sources report that French ships, along with British ships, are accompanying the Theodore Roosevelt to the Gulf. This would indicate a joint military venture.

THE BLACKOUT

This is receiving no coverage by the media of the Western nations. It is a non-event. Yet if I know about it, and if I have been able to verify three-fifths of the story by official sources, then there is no question in my mind that any of the major news media that wanted to assign one lone individual to tracing down the details of this story would be able to do this without a great deal of difficulty. Yet the media have remained absolutely silent about this.

This sounds fishy to me. It sounds as though there is a coordinated effort among Western owners of the media to make certain that the voters are kept in the dark.

Why should this story not be front-page news? Two very good reasons are the fragility of the economy with oil under $130 a barrel, and what could happen if it goes to $400. Nobody wants to trigger bank runs. The existence of an armada of this size raises an obvious question: Against which nation in the Persian Gulf is such an armada to be used? The answer is obvious: Iran.

If this armada is to be used against Iran, the next question arises: What will happen to the price of oil if Iranian exports of oil are cut off by an armada whose purpose is to stop all trade with Iran? Second question: What would happen to the price of oil if Iran sinks two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz?

Third question: What would happen to maritime insurance rates for oil tankers in the Persian Gulf?

This raises a fourth question: Is the fleet's purpose to police the Strait of Hormuz, to make certain that the land-based anti-ship missiles that may have been installed by Iran can be stopped?

Fifth question: Why would Iran sink oil tankers, apart from wartime?

These questions relate to the supply of oil. The price of oil, as with the price of all other commodities, is set at the margin. The problem with the price of oil is that it is so volatile. There are no short-term supplies of oil that can come on-stream in response to rising prices. Because increased supplies do not respond to an increase in the price of oil, prices rise very fast and very high whenever there is a major interruption of oil production or delivery.

REST AT LINK (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north648.html)



7-11 loves you Gary...

BugoutBear
09-03-2008, 11:01 AM
Have you checked the number of NATO ships in the Black Sea lately?
My last count was 11 going to 18. A larger force than usual.

All it's going to take is one miscalculation and everything's going to blow up in our faces.

Literally.

Edited to Add: I've been reading about the "Armada" (biggest since the Iraq invasion) buildup on other boards for months. People are monitoring it -- they're just the only ones who care enough to pay attention.

Mayerling
09-03-2008, 01:10 PM
Pretty ominous if you ask me

BirdGuano
09-03-2008, 01:12 PM
I thought half were just regular battlegroup rotations.

Well except for the Black Sea task force there for obvious reasons.

Potemkin
09-03-2008, 01:14 PM
"Scary Gary" still looking for relevancy.

So sad.

It sounds as though there is a coordinated effort among Western owners of the media to make certain that the voters are kept in the dark.

Blackout implies secrecy or collusion between the press and the government.

It isn't happening. The foreign press knows about it. The boards know about it.

The press being vapid isn't nothing new.

Sorry Gary, your 15 minutes of fame are over.

Brihard
09-03-2008, 03:51 PM
The man's a fool.

The Peleliu and the Iwo Jima are not aircraft carriers. They're Marine amphibious ships, each of which has just one battalion of Marines, thirty helos and a half dozen harriers. Two battalions of Marines are a drop in the bucket.

Aircraft carriers are a regular presence in the gulf to support air operations in Iraq.

Moreover, especially today, you don't bring a carrier group home without another one on station to relieve it.

The Americans DO NOT HAVE the ground troops necessary to defeat and occupy Iran. They could pound its army, sure, but what kind of insurgency do you think a nation with two and a half times the population of Iraq would foster?

Bush is an idiot, but his military leadership are not.

frodo
09-03-2008, 04:47 PM
Potemkin and Brihard, hope both of you are right. However if any side "miscalculates", the cost will be catastrophic.

As for insurance on tankers in the Gulf, watch Lloyd's for any change, that will be yor first and probably only warning of an American attack. If there is a war, then the U.S. Government will have to provide the insurance otherwise the tankers stop moving, period.


By the way, the amphibious outfits plus marines would be used to seize Iranian Islands and perhaps raid the Iranian coats to scour the area for anti ship missiles and Iranian naval assets. Those speedboats have to go somewhere.

Prudens
09-04-2008, 04:20 PM
Blackout implies secrecy or collusion between the press and the government.

It isn't happening. The foreign press knows about it. The boards know about it.

The press being vapid isn't nothing new.

Sorry Gary, your 15 minutes of fame are over.

Hey POT, you are intellectually not honest in this post in stating that Blackout implies secrecy or collusion between the press and the government. It isn't happening ... lol

The foreign press knows about it you say, Indeed they know it, Australia, Kiwis, China, Arabs, Easttern former Soviet Union countries, Western Europe and even Canada has a totally different story that is and has gone on in US.

Georgia initiate the brutal attack at night on civilians while they where sleeping.

Yep, all foreign countries knows that exept US.

Quaint, Odd, isnt it. Five Companies owns all major newspapers, radios, tvs, internet and strangely they are all near friends of the admin.

Ah ! Goebbels expertise, how lasting it is.

Prudens

Michael
09-04-2008, 05:05 PM
They don't want anyone raising questions, such as WHO IS PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS? I could say taxpayers, or at least we will eventually. But to be precise, we are borrowing the money from nations like SAUDI ARABIA. Just think about the price on Saudi oil going up if there are airstrikes on Iran and the oil fields are taken off line. But then, the next natural question is who will pay for airstrikes and their aftermath. You can't hit all the targets that have been rumored to have already been identified without collateral damage. The Iranian people will pay the price. All of those bombs will cost money, and the military will have to go and buy new bombs from the same people, which means more government contracts for the billionaire military industrial complex corporations. They will not pay, they will get richer. If there is a war as a result, our troops will be the closest targets at risk. They will pay. More troops may need to be sent in. That means increased recruitment or drafting of low income working class African, Latino, Native Americans and generally rural white Americans. The rich guys making all the decisions about airstrikes and war and their extended families will as usual not generally be drafted or volunteer. In short, our troops and non rich Americans will pay.

Curious
09-04-2008, 09:40 PM
There is NO abnormal ship concentration in the Middle East area at the moment!!

Aircraft Carriers must NOT be confused with an ESG Group!! They are different things with different purposes.

At the moment we only have 3 Aircraft Carrier Groups underway out of 8 (+-1) possible - we have 12 but several are in various stages of overhaul etc.. During the attack on Iraq we had 5 to 6 in the area with another one underway in the Pacific, so the numbers do not even come close to that point in time. Last year at one point in time we had 7 underway, with 4 near the Gulf, a high risk point in time for an attack, but nothing happened.

The ESG Groups are where people are confused.

Those Groups generally consist of an LHA or LHD, the mini carriers that carry a few Harrier jump jets and numberous helicopters, along with a LSD and a LPD. The LSD and LPD also have compliments of helicopters and all three ship types have landing crafts of various types including the high speed hoovercraft, plus of course several escort vessels. These are the ships that provide the Marines the mobility to be quickly inserted into combat positions anywhere in the world that is near a sea coast. (usually a reinforced Brigade per ESG)

At the moment the US Navy has enough large ships to make up roughly 11 ESG's, though again at any point in time some of those ships are under repair. The most I ever saw at sea at one time was 8 ... again at the same time that the US had numberous carriers out last year.

At the present there are 4 ESG's underway, which is actually on the low side of the norm for the last couple of years.

Before any attack on Iran occures I would expect to see at least 6 ESG's underway and at least 4 within a couple of days sailing time of Iran (due to the need to quickly insert troops into Iran so as to neutralize the shore anti ship missile batteries). The numbers are NOT even close at the moment.

Everybody needs to take a "Chill Pill" for now ... though by Oct 1 the situation could be very very different.

Curious

Michael
09-04-2008, 10:26 PM
UNLESS THE ISRAELIS ARE ALSO INVOLVED.

Brihard
09-05-2008, 11:56 AM
UNLESS THE ISRAELIS ARE ALSO INVOLVED.

Michael, you forgot about The Corporations too. :p

Michael
09-05-2008, 01:20 PM
The military industrial complex corporations conducting their own airstrikes on Iran? I know they are eager for a new war and more contracts, but that would be called "jumping the gun." (^:

BirdGuano
09-06-2008, 12:31 PM
Michael, you forgot about The Corporations too. :p

That's "Evil Corporations(tm)"