Why they didn't got through with it?
Ever thought because it was never true and it was just rumours?
2007-04-07 07:41:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by smr 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
in accordance to the way Bush is in simple terms operating round doing regardless of he needs- there's a threat that something negative could ensue, that's (probable) why Iran released the hostages. via Iran declaring the launch replaced into contained in the spirit of Easter and Jesus Christ replaced right into a very sarcastic stab at our actuality. maximum human beings have ignored that jab. What excuse will can we could invade now? If this plan exists in any respect- it may must be heavily revised- and given the present flow of propaganda and the actual actuality the Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice and Rumsfeld could get lynched at any second in any u . s .- possibilities are severe the protection force will back off till they could plant something which will stick and benefit more advantageous public help that Iran is a severe probability to u . s . of america. Being the present administration has reached the heights of corruption that it has with all the global in view (and thank to the web, which they under no circumstances counted on)- there is too a lot re-questioning and re-strategizing being finished to anticipate something each and every time quickly. to boot, Liberal propaganda is almost continuously followd-up with solid and practicable resources- while conservatives and republicans heavily position self assurance in "spin" under no circumstances revealing resources or answering direct questions. Being that no records or memos were leaked about "Operation chew"- I heavily doubt its life. If it does exist it is going to ultimately become public- Then the conservative republicans have had it. it's going to be the end of that facist social gathering for solid.
2016-11-27 01:32:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the Iranians got wind of it and snatched some hostages till the danger past.
2007-04-07 20:51:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
I believe that the military are waiting until the 60 day deadline expiration date given to Iran by the UNSC. That will be the end of May.
The U.N. Security Council unanimously voted to expand sanctions on March 24, 2007. The new resolution 1747 calls on Iran to comply fully with all previous UN resolutions and join negotiations to reach agreement so as to restore international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. Full transparency and cooperation with the IAEA are required. Suspension of Iran’s banned nuclear activities will elicit the parallel suspension of sanctions. The package of incentives offered Tehran last year for its cooperation remains on the table. The full text of the draft of resolution 1747 appears at this website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6455853.stm
Military confrontation may be on the horizon.
Iran's key nuclear sites.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm
In addition to the British frigate HMS Cornwall, there is a multi-national strike force in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, there are British naval vessels stationed at the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian ocean. The British Royal Navy may take action with its Special Boat Service (SBS) , the British Royal Navy's special forces unit. The service's motto is "By Strength and Guile". It forms part of the United Kingdom Special Forces, alongside the Special Air Service (SAS), Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR), and Special Forces Support Group (SFSG).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Boat_Service
Ready to assist are the American aircraft carrier strike group aircraft carrier CVN-73 USS John C. Stennis (deployed January 20), the American aircraft carrier strike group CVN-69 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the French nuclear carrier Charles de Gaulle and its task force are all in close appoximation in the Persian Gulf. A 3rd carrier group, the CVN-68 USS Nimitz (deployed March 30) was scheduled for its WESTPAC07 deployment to replace the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower which was deployed December 2006. But accounts indicate that all three strike groups still remain in the Persian Gulf.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3961
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-68.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070330/pl_afp/usmilitaryirannavy_070330160111;_ylt=Annlx2.rLEDDrJgz9RYaNIcUewgF
Amphibious ready group LHD-5 Bataan ( USS Oak Hill, USS Shreveport). In carrying out its primary mission, BATAAN would transport and land ashore not only troops, but also the tanks, trucks and other vehicles, artillery, ammunition, and complete supplies necessary to fully support the assault. LHD-5's armament system includes the NATO Sea Sparrow Surface Missile System (NSSMS) for antiair warfare protection, two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Systems and two Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) mounts to counter threats from low flying aircraft and close-in small craft. Six missile decoy launchers augment LHD-5's antiship missile defenses. LDH-5 was scheduled back on April 4 and was evidently kept in the Persian Gulf due to circumstances in the area.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1265
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-5.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/marg.htm
The US may have deployed 4 or 5 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070328/62741920.html
Hmmmmm
The big "E" CVN-65 Enterprise ready strike group
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-65.htm
Maybe CVN-76 Reagan was deployed
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-76.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm
Maybe CVN-72 Lincoln?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-72.htm
Is CVN-77 Bush ready?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-77.htm
More details about military options can be found here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007, the two US strike groups, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and the USS Stennis, along with guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam, conducted military exercises in the Persian Gulf. The participants included 15 warships and more than 100 aircraft..
Each carrier carries an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking refueling and anti-submarine planes, and E-2C Hawkeye airborne command-and-control aircraft.
Also taking part were six guided-missile destroyers, the Anzio, Ramage, O'Kane, Mason, Preble and Nitze; the frigate Hawes; amphibious assault ships Boxer and Bataan; and the minesweepers Scout, Gladiator and Ardent.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-03/28/content_838185.htm
The Isfahan plant is above ground, but Natanz is more than 50ft below and would require either a tactical nuclear missile or a conventional bunker-buster bomb to destroy it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1753223,00.html.
Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missiles are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and can be detonated by a remote-control device while still in high-altitude flight as electromagnetic pulse weapons - even one of which could knock out America's critical electrical and technological infrastructure, effectively sending the continental U.S. back to the 19th century with a recovery time of months or years. Iran will have that capability – at least theoretically – as soon as it has one nuclear bomb ready to arm such a missile
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43956
.
.
2007-04-10 14:03:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
i heard we were supposed to bomb bush
2007-04-07 07:50:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by :) 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
No, I had not heard that, so why didn't we???
Might as well we are bombing everybody else.
2007-04-07 09:12:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Obviously, someone at the American Enterprise Institute wasn't doing their job well enough, it seems...
2007-04-07 09:34:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
i dunno, let me check the military operations channel on television. they list all scheduled bombings and offensives there. that way, no one gets hurt.
2007-04-07 07:54:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by bluebear 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
just be glad it didn't happen
2007-04-09 12:20:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
It didn't happen because Bush's daddy refused to protect his
sorry a-s-s- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-04-07 08:17:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Williamstown 5
·
0⤊
3⤋