world

U.S. deploys aircraft carrier strike group, land-based bombers in warning to Iran

37 Comments
By Robert Burns

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

37 Comments
Login to comment

Good move Trump. One reason I am starting to be a Trump supporter is that he acts decisively BEFORE a problem starts and thus avoids a war. I couldn't stand the warmongering from Bush.

-9 ( +12 / -21 )

Trump needs a distraction from his crimes

4 ( +17 / -13 )

It appears that Trump is about to stage a major detraction from his domestic legal woes — from the "Wag-the-Dog" playbook.

He is so transparent.

8 ( +19 / -11 )

Shades of US duplicity in the years leading up to the last time things went all pear shaped, when they were openly flouting neutrality pledges in order to goad Hitler into retaliating, and electing a Democrat president (Roosevelt) who was brazenly manouvering to do the exact opposite of his re-election campaign promise to keep America out of Europe’s War.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The Iranians will have a hard time getting along with their Qatari' neighbors if they try anything ( I don't believe they WILL). There would / will be HELL to pay...not good for "Business", but wouldn't put it past them.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

This is what happens when you have a bunch of draft dodgers--Trump, Bolton and a former Boeing bean counter and non-confirmed SecDef--Shanahan, running the U.S. Government....

10 ( +17 / -7 )

@CrazyJoe, seems to me Trump is restrained and hasn't involved us in another long, unwinnable war with a third world country like Iraq or Afghanistan. Last president dealing with Iran had our sailors captured with videos showing them crying. I support Trump brandishing the big stick without having to use it.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

Pouty, stupid little boys playing with very dangerous toys. How, in the name of all that's just and good, did we find ourselves here? Trump and his idiots are the biggest threat to national security this country has ever faced.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

White House decision to dispatch an aircraft carrier and other military resources to send a message to Iran followed "clear indications" that Iranian and Iranian proxy forces were preparing to possibly attack U.S. forces in the region

False flag coming up in a matter of weeks? ..Venezuela and Iran...as usual its about oil money. Go take a meditation retreat somewhere to chill out Bolton and rest of the neocon bunch.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

Well Trumpers, what do you think of this?

Your Dear Leader said during the campaign that the Iraq War was the single worst mistake in our history - so now, being led by John "Bomb Now" Bolton - one of the architects and planners for the Iraq War, we're now starting a new war with Iran.... Surprise!

So who did you vote for; "Bring the Troops Home" Trump or "I Love Wars in the Middle East" Trump?

We're batting 1,000 - put a Repub in the White House and you're guaranteed another Middle East War...

5 ( +12 / -7 )

seems to me Trump is restrained and hasn't involved us in another long, unwinnable war with a third world country like Iraq or Afghanistan

Still supporting IS/al nusa in Syria, bombing civilians in Yemen, pushing for a civil war in Venezuela, arming and supporting Israeli terrorism in Palestine and Lebanon, sending warships to East China Sea, war games with South Korea, and bullying Iran.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Trump and the neo-cons are continuing to do whatever possible to keep the US's big war industries profitable. War industries remain central to maintaining the US economy. Same as it ever was.

@bas4 Democrats turn from loving the US to wanting it to become the land of the hammer and sickle,

Said no Democrat, only deluded ultra-rightists. However, there are Trump supporters whose beliefs echo those of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

Asked about "escalatory actions," Pompeo replied, "I don't want to talk about what underlays it, but make no mistake, we have good reason to want to communicate clearly about how the Iranians should understand how we will respond to actions they may take."

So why not talk about it? Why not put it out there, whatever the "good reason" the US thinks it has for these actions, so there's no misunderstanding by the Iranians? Or by the rest of the world, for that matter?

If he really can't talk about it for security reasons then you'd like to think these actions would be backed up by some behind the scenes actual communication with the Iranian Government, but with these guys I doubt it.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Let's also hope the U.S. Navy won't be shooting down another civilian airliner like the USS Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser? Killing all 272 on board.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

It’s just a bluff. It is to say we are not afraid of being here. The US has no interest in going to war with Iran and the same vice versa. You've got to be really dense to think otherwise.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Two nations having a face off can lead to a violent escalation between them.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

It will never happen unless there is a sudden plan to wean the world off the addiction to oil!

Any attack in Iran would have dire

consequences for the oil price and the world economy....

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Perhaps Iran should deploy a carrier group as well, to the Gulf of mexico close to Texas. Of course, they are there to ensure the peace. Iran should also have troops in Mexico and Canada just as US has troops in Iraq and afghanistan.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

If the US removed its forces from the region there would be no risk of them being attacked. The units could be disbanded and the money saved given back to the people through tax cuts.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Well, he got the headline. So, for now at least, other stuff is not getting top billing. And, as much as I hate to admit it, both parties in the US have been hawkish toward Iran. It's not just a Republican or Trump thing. But in this case, yeah, it looks like a convenient distraction. (Meanwhile, in North Korea....)

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I don't want to talk about what underlays it

Let me help lickspittle Pompeo out:

—Sheldon Adelson

—Benjamin Netanyahu

—Leftover deep state neocon swamp creatures like Bolton

—Trump’s hatred of Obama and the Iran nuclear accord

Remember, things were going in a more positive direction with Iran until Trump tore up the agreement with nothing better to replace it with. Then added sanctions to aggravate Iran. And now that Iran responds the US sends heavy guns.

Pure gangster stuff. And I’m sure Bolton won’t be offering any of his loved ones to do the fighting.

Sick puppy.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Trump and the neo-cons are continuing to do whatever possible to keep the US's big war industries profitable. War industries remain central to maintaining the US economy. Same as it ever was.

And the Democrat solution to any possible conflict is what Besides appeasement or capitulation?

Said no Democrat, only deluded ultra-rightists.

No, the Democrats don’t have to say anything, the actions of their outlandish policy proposals tells the entire story of where they want to take the country.

However, there are Trump supporters whose beliefs echo those of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Hmmmm....not really, because there are No conservative social media sites banning liberals of free speech, telling liberals what they can say. Democrats never have solutions to solve these problems except for backdoor deals with our adversaries.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Remember, things were going in a more positive direction with Iran until Trump tore up the agreement with nothing better to replace it with.

Thank God, he did! It was the worst and most embarrassing as well as degrading

Here are the four most dangerous problems with the deal:

The whole neighborhood will race to go nuclear. This deal most likely will accelerate nuclear proliferation. Because if regional powers feel threatened by the possibility of Iran getting a weapon and the penalty for producing nuclear weapons decreases, then why wouldn’t they?

**Tehran gets to keep its vast nuclear infrastructure and its missile program.**  And the promises from Iran only confirm the obvious: that the regime definitely has nuclear-weapons ambitions. After all, why have a massive ballistic-missile program and secret military nuclear facilities if the plan isn’t to build nuclear weapons?

Sanctions relief will make the region far less safe. The sanctions relief and the renewed ability to sell more oil on the open market could wind up bringing $300-400 billion into the Iranian economy, bolstering the Iranian government. Essentially, this means the deal will pay for undermining U.S. policy and interests throughout the region.

The deal is temporary, by design. Even the White House doesn’t claim it will permanently keep Iran from getting a bomb. So, what’s the point?

The deal enriches and emboldens Iran — an unstable and unprincipled nation. And it destabilizes the region even further and its puts its neighbors — our allies — at risk. It is a bad deal. While the Obama administration insists that there were only two choices — the deal or war — the choices were neither that limited, nor that simple. As Carafano concludes, “This deal is not the antidote to war. Rather, it makes increased conflict all the more likely.”

https://www.myheritage.org/news/4-reasons-why-the-iran-deal-may-be-the-worst-diplomatic-decision-in-history/

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

The question is; how many of Washington's lapdogs (NATO and other so-called allies) are prepared to follow the US into another war. A bigger questions is; are the people of theses nations going to allow/accept their nation going in to war so the US can continue to bully and dominate these nations. It is time that the people of  ALL nations stared to control their government, started to hold their government accountable to the voters.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The U.S. have also deployed military ships to the South China Sea.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Do as we say, or be excluded from our "Club" ?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

We are living in dangerous times. The UK Government recently commissioned a report into the persecution of Christians .... unsurprisingly some countries figured more prominently than others, and this will just feed fuel into the fires of those willing to accept it.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

As for questions... clearly the US will Nuke Iran, so who else in the World with Nuclear capability will care ?

Russia wont - they dont like the Islamic influence as much as the rest of the World, the Israel's will rejoyce as Hamas will suddenly cease to exist. So... would wiping out IRAn be such a bad thing ?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

So... would wiping out IRAn be such a bad thing ?

If the lives of 80 million people, the lawlessness, violence & endless retribution that would ensue, the complete instability of the whole region and the worldwide demonization of America don't matter then no. Might as well do China while they're at it eh?

Trump will soon get bored of Iran and go and play with someone else who he is told to.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Let's also hope the U.S. Navy won't be shooting down another civilian airliner like the USS Vincennes, a guided missile cruiser? Killing all 272 on board.

That happened 31 years ago and we weren't the last country to do it, either. Time to move on.

Perhaps Iran should deploy a carrier group as well,

They'd have to get one first.

The units could be disbanded and the money saved given back to the people through tax cuts.

Sure. Let's not even have a military until someone attacks us. That makes so much sense. I'm sure no one would want to attack a defenseless United States.

So why not talk about it? Why not put it out there, whatever the "good reason" the US thinks it has for these actions, so there's no misunderstanding by the Iranians? Or by the rest of the world, for that matter?

Yeah, why don't we tell our enemy what our plans are so they can prepare for it in advance? It's only fair, right?

All I've got to say is better to have it and not need it than the other way around.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Trump needs a distraction from his crimes

The report says he committed no crime. The book is closed. I guess the Dems want to make a movie about it now.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The book is closed.

Unfortunately, as long as that book doesn't end the way that they wanted it to, it will never be closed...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Essentially, this means the deal will pay for undermining U.S. policy and interests throughout the region.

You say that as if that's a bad thing.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

So, how will these U.S. psychopaths spin "WMDs" this time? Perhaps something as blatant as The Gulf of Tonkin incident where our own pilots say there were no Vietnamese attackers, just empty water and a whole lot of American ordnance. 50,000 DEAD BONE SPUR CHALLENGED AMERICAN CHILDREN sent off by exactly these people in different skins. 250,000 maimed both physically and mentally. Or maybe the Lusitania model, or Pearl Harbor, or wait for our own sailors to screw up vis-a-vis The Maine, or they'll conduct another 9/11. If the zionists want Iran destroyed, they must do it themselves. Iran has complied with every demand we have made of them and now, out of desperation and the pressure of their Masters, these U.S. lowlifes will ignore any need for justification and create their own. If America goes to war with anyone, it should be with Washington, D.C. and parts of NYC and LA. NO PRISONERS! Peace in our time...

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Trump has no 'domestic legal woes'. The Democrats who attempted a coup have domestic legal woes. Commie (communist??) Clapper.. etc, etc are in real trouble when all the stuff comes out.

Meanwhile, I have never been a fan of Bolton. He is part of the Cabal that led us into problems with Iraq. He and Cheney. Not a fan. I am not a fan of iran mullahs either, but I would rather Israel took them out, not the United States. Perhaps the Israelis and Saudis can take the Mullah's out?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

William Bjornson - Perhaps something as blatant as The Gulf of Tonkin incident where our own pilots say there were no Vietnamese attackers, just empty water and a whole lot of American ordnance.

Are you referring to the August 2nd 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident where several North Vietnamese patrol torpedo boats attacked the USS Maddox (DD-731), or the August 4th, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident that doesn't seem to have actually occurred? On August 4th, the North Vietnam torpedo boats were in dry dock for repairs after they had been shot to pieces on August 2nd.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sure. Let's not even have a military until someone attacks us. That makes so much sense. I'm sure no one would want to attack a defenseless United States.

You can buy a gun and defend yourself. Why do you want the government to defend you, are you some sort of communist/socialist?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites