There is a great deal going on in the Gulf in preparation including a huge
expansion to runways, storage facilities in various UAE states and transfers
out of Saudi Arabia. Here is just one example of the navy stuff. Of course
with appropriate denial that it has anything to do with an Iraq war.
Sorry about duplication Louis' post. GMTA :)
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Navy gears up in gulf
But says there's no Iraq attack in the works
By RICHARD SISK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON - The Navy has put out contracts for 10 cargo ships to move Army
tanks and other equipment to the gulf region that could be used for a ground
war against Iraq, military officials said yesterday.
Two charters for fast roll-on, roll-off civilian ships to carry the
equipment from the U.S. and Europe to an unidentified Discharge Port 4 in
the Red Sea were approved this month.
The Navy's Military Sealift Command also signed a $220million contract last
week with Maersk, a shipping company, to operate and maintain eight 950-foot
roll-on, roll-offs.
That contract called for the ships to "carry U.S. Army cargo such as
ammunition and vehicles such as M1A1 [Abrams] tanks" and take them to
"pre-positioning sites" off the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia.
Several of the ships are from the Navy's Afloat Pre-Positioning Force Four,
which also operates in the Arabian Gulf.
Navy Cmdr. Dan Keesee, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said one of
the civilian charter ships would be used for the "routine transport of
military equipment from Europe to pre-positioning sites in our area of
responsibility," which includes Iraq.
He said the equipment would include Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Humvees.
'It's routine'
Keesee said the movement of equipment should not be considered a buildup for
a possible invasion to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The shipments
"had been planned for a couple of years," and the equipment might be used
for military exercises, he said.
"We charter ships all the time, it's routine for us" to station military
equipment around the world, said a spokeswoman for the Sealift Command.
But Dan Goure, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, said the
cargo shipments "suggest something is in the works" on Iraq. "The
pre-positioning stuff is already out there. This is something else," he
said.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had little knowledge of the
shipments but said they might have something to do with training exercises
in Jordan, which borders Iraq.
He dismissed claims by Iraq that it has no weapons of mass destruction and
that there is no need for weapons inspections.
"It seems to me it's like a broken record," Rumsfeld said. "They're in
violation of the UN resolutions."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 8:40 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:29568] Rumours of war on Iraq
> I'm with Michael Pollack on this one. No realistic discernable
> strategic goal. No reliable staging posts. No enduring alliance. No
> conceivable solution to the Palestine question. No decisive good will
> in the region. No hard evidence to defend pretext #1 (Baghdad links to
> al Qaeda), pretext #2 (capacity and intention to deploy weapons of mass
> destruction against 'west'), or the desperately shrill pretext #3
> (Saddam is worse than any other despot in the world and it's worth
> killing tens of thousands of people who aren't Saddam to depose him).
> So what support there is even at home for a unilateral first strike is
> likely a mile wide and an inch deep (even if enough support for
> November, that support would be wider than it is deep, and likely to
> damage 2004 chances).
>
> Anyway, if the attack was to be a full scale November invasion, would
> they not already have to be landing armour, logistics and troops in
> discernable quantities?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
>
> Michael Pollak wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect that the war is directed at the Nov. elections.
> >
> > Michael, if it will cheer you up, I'll bet you there's no war before the
> > elections. In fact I'll give you 2 to 1. And if you'll give me 2 to 1,
> > I'll bet you they will be no war in next 365 days.
> >
> > Michael
>
>
