The deployment of aircraft carriers could mean one of four things:

[originalpckelly]

1. Complete bluff, simply to scare Iran into giving up its nuclear ambitions. Quite a good bluff might I add.

2. Keeping options open, aircraft carriers are not speedy machines, they take a long time to sail to a destination, this would mean we just want to be ready if we need it.

3. Something insidious is planned, before the elections to cause a landslide for the Republicans, or after the elections because they know the elections will be fixed, Bush will attempt to invade Iran. This is quite scary and would certainly mean that he is ready to take te plunge into a full dictatorship.

4. Some combination of 1 & 2.

[Rex]

1. Complete, but expensive, bluff.

Just like Rove's October Surprise - their running on gas vapors.

[gordianot]

2. Conventional bombing would be a disaster only superseded by nuclear bombs

War with Iran is truly a lose lose proposition.

[Cosmocat]

3. Thoughts ...

1) Not a "good bluff" at all ... This country has ZERO intimidation factor at this point ... Also, the leadership of Iran knows it will gain by being attacked by the USA ... They WELCOME our attacking them ...

3) Could be ... These guys are nothing if not repetitive ... Could be ready to ramp up just on the eve of the elections to do the big, "can't change leadership in midstream" meme ... OR ... Ready to crank up after a D win, BEFORE they come back to session, to avoid having a congress that might actually reel them in ...

[MadMaddie]

4. 1 and 2 totally possible

3 However; if they were to bombard Iran with arsenal from the ships...they would need BOOTS on the ground to follow up....and we don't have the BOOTS..


and

then they would have Russia and China to deal with because both will protect their interest...Putin hates * and China is not to be messed with especially since they own a large % of US debt...

The question is..Is this administration foolish enought to send the US econonomy into a tailspin to hold on to power? I say yes....

[sce56]

5. Best case scenario would be to relive currently deployed assets

I hope that is all there is to it but would not doubt thier could be an OrwelRovian plot to distract with an attack on Iran.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602211200/

Got Fascism Yet?

[keta11]

6. I say Option 1

I know he is not dumb enough to attack Iran without Congresssional authorization.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Yah, gw bluffs SOOOO much.

[boolean]

8. It's #3. Bet on it.

Let's not forget that even Clinton used military strikes right before his impeachement.

I have no doubt there will be some military action right before these eleections. Also a new Osama tape and the alert level will go up.

[Horse with no Name]

10. WWAAIIITTTT A MINUTE

Please clarify your statement:
"EVEN Clinton used military strikes right before his impeachement"
What exactly do you mean by that?
Please answer promptly. Sounds an awful lot like a RW talking point.

[bullimiami]

9. could be a combination relieving another carrier group and getting a bluff

out of it at the same time.

im afraid our navy might be in deep trouble trapped in the persian gulf if we started up with iran. not to mention the trouble our ground troops in iraq are going to be in. bush could lose the entire military and be left with no options but nuclear.

that should scare you.

[A HERETIC I AM]

11. Re #2...I think you would be surprised how fast they can go

and how far they can travel in 24 hours running flat out.

Nimitz class A/C Carriers top speeds are classified but i have had many conversations with knowledgeable men who have served on them, built them and worked/engineered on them that convince me that...well...suffice to say, you wouldnt want to be on the flight deck of one running at full speed.

[magellan]

12. There's supposed to be a naval exercise in the region starting Oct 31

That would account for the build-up of task groups. It would also provide cover for intentional provocation of Iran and make any response on their part look like an unprovoked attack on our fleet.

[TahitiNut]

13. 5. Attract (or false flag) attack on naval vessel by "Iranian" forces.

Tonkin Gulf redux. :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: Remember the Maine?

[roody]

14. Is Bush going to sink one of our ships?

[Yukari Yakumo]

15. All things considered...

I don't think there is no low that the Chimp and his cronies would stoop to.

Wage war for profit, check.
Endorse torture, check.
Wage war for profit again, give 'im time.
Rig elections, Rove'll handle that.
Declare martial law and dissolve Congress when things didn't turn out like they planned in November, don't be surprised.
Detain every Muslim, homosexual, and anyone else they please to consen- uh... "Re-Patriation Centers", plans probably already drawn up.

[TahitiNut]

16. It'd be the Iranians, of course. Sure it would. Yep.

:eyes: