More bombers to ME right now?

[eridani]

Whassup with this? Iran? Syria? Anyone else heard anything?

http://debka.com/

DEBKAfile’s military sources report unusually heavy US bomber and fighter air traffic on the move from US West Coast to Middle East via Scotland

[htuttle]

1. Debka's military sources?

Puhlease. This was originally reported just the other day by a Scottish peace group (who watch the US air bases there on a regular basis).

I'm guessing that this is a reflection of that report, since all the details are the same. I don't know if it's true or not. The only other corroborating item I'm aware of is a different report of large overseas deployment of military air traffic controllers (both were in GD the last few days).

[Military Brat]

2. There was a post on DU this morning

No one seemed to have any confirmed information. Maybe we're back to major combat operations, maybe we're gearing up to hit Syria.

Looks like bush needs to create a big distraction from Iraq.

Edited: Sometimes debka gets it right, just as often they don't ...

[aquart]

3. Syria, or Iran?

The awful thing is, I believe TIIC will do it. We don't have the forces to man Iraq and Afghanistan, but they'll send us after Syria, a nation not used to taking things lying down.

Oh, goody.

We better get used to freezing in the dark.

[happyslug]

4. Lets assume this is true

And let me say that DEBKA's reputation is NOT the best for reliable intelligence (But the peace group may have better data).

The issue is where would one use bombers and how? Our troops in Iraq are to close to the population of Iraq for this to be aimed at Iraq. Where the bombers could be used, the Iraqi Fighters ARE NOT, and where the Iraqi fighters ARE, we dare not use bombers (Both do to fear of hitting out own troops AND civilians).

This leaves Iran, Syria or even Saudi Arabia. Could the "Attempted Terror Bombing" that the Saudi Secret Police broke up yesterday be the start of a revolt in Arabia? If that is true the only way we could respond would be bombers, it would take 1-2 weeks to get our Carriers in position to respond.

Bombing Syria or Iran would be meaningless. Unless you have good intelligence where the Iranians or Syrians are massing supplies to support the Iraqi Guerillas any bombing would be useless (and given that the reports indict that the Guerillas are just using the ammo Saddam stored all over the place in Iraq over the last 20 years why bomb Iran or Syria?)

Bush may want to do something, anything to show he is winning the War in Iraq so he might expand it. The problem is he has no Infantry to expand it with. He can order a bombing, but once the bombing is done either Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia will have more than enough time to recover before we can send in troops (If we ever can).

I am sorry, I have had questions on the House of Saud's control of Arabia for years. Something may be brewing in the Arabian Peninsula that Bush feels he has to respond to and the only way he can respond quickly is with bombers.

[frustrated_lefty]

5. Wasn't Oct. 31st the deadline

for Iran to prove it has no secret program for producing nuclear weapons?

[Point_n_click]

6. October 31st was the deadline.

However, this may have more to do with the tension between Isreal and Syria. If the Israelis and Syrians begin open conflict other Arab nations are quite likely to get involved. That would undoubtedly drag the U.S. into the conflict. It is possible that the big cheeses in the Pentagon and D.C. expect an escalation soon and are preparing for it.

[VolcanoJen]

7. Not LBN... locking

For the record, the moderators of the Latest Breaking News Forum do not consider Debka to be a credible-enough source for posting in this forum. Threads which use Debka as their primary source will be locked or moved accordingly.

Feel free to repost this information in a more appropriate DU forum.

Thanks,
VolcanoJen
DU Moderator