It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Bout Time
However, the plans have caused alarm among local police chiefs. Military commanders are also concerned that the "no-fly" periods may halt helicopter flights from HMS Gannet, the Royal Navy rescue base.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Here is a better idea:
Hold the summit on the Queen Mary or some such cruise ship, while it sails through international waters with the carrier acting as escort.
Originally posted by ZanzibarOr do as you said, but with a nice RAF escort of a couple of Tornadoes or such as. And let them bomb Bush while hes in a little dinghy being towed behind, see how he likes it, being completely defenseless and under the mercy of the guy with the big badda bomb.
Originally posted by Hamburglar
BT…Long time, no argue.
Hope all is well....did you just get released?
BT, I won’t argue whether this constitutes disrespect on our parts for the leaders and diplomats and security operations of foreign, sovereign nations. The fact is, I don’t know. I am not well versed in the protocols of security in foreign, sovereign nations.
Defo, neither am I. I look at it like this: Scotland & the overall UK capabilities that will be brought to bear on security for the summit are FIRST World caliber, far exceeding anything that could be cobbled together for the South American of Former Soviet Republics trip.
I will say that I don’t think any of this is meant to be disrespectful; instead, it is perhaps the rational outcome of a realist’s notion of GW’s popularity in Europe. That is, he and his advisors know he is not well liked, they know someone already chucked a grenade at him recently; this time, they are not going to take chances with someone else’s security measures. Can’t say I blame him for that.
See above. We are talking an AIRCRAFT CARRIER here!! The boy best stay home then!
As to your point about how we can justify this in the face of supposed “shortages” in the Gulf, I would imagine that Cole is correct that we already have all of the equipment and personnel necessary to pull this task off with ease. Furthermore, those shortages may refer to specifically “fighting men.”
For every guy with a gun in hand on the front lines in today’s military, there are probably 5-10 behind the lines supporting that guy. Think of all the cooks, mechanics, doctors, nurses, drivers, PR folks, outhouse-cleaner-uppers, in fact, just about every job under the sun is necessary to make sure one guy can do his job effectively in the field.
Not true. The Facilities Management contract for the entire Navy & Army, GLOBALLY, was given to Kellog, Brown & Root, a sub of Haliburton. Numerous threads are up & all have the recurring point of dismay: those tens of thousands of bodies in the field take no orders from Officers, they carry no weapon to bolster forces, they are nothing but a costs boondoggle that creates a hobbled fighting force being put forward that does not have a boot camp suvivor in every field position.
So, you tell me (cause I really don’t know), where are the shortages? Are they with fighters or support? If they are with fighters, than having support personnel (which is mostly what would be at G8 on GW’s behalf) wouldn’t make much difference at all. If there are support shortages, than you may well have an excellent point to argue.
THe cost for this, in fuel & manpower, can not help but be drawn in contrast to the vehicle & armament shortages already well documented in Iraq. Again, 100's of personnel , 100's of vehicles and all that fuel do cost.
Finally, let me say this (and I think you might agree with me here BT), I see it as much better for the Europeans (particularly the Scots) to have GW BYOS (bring your own security). If, in the very long chance, GW is attacked, hurt, or even killed (which I am not now advocating or condoning, nor ever will advocate or condone), far better it happens under our watch than that of the Scots. What a nightmare it would be for the Scots, what with the accusations of negligence, or worse, complicity…And let’s not forget the conspiracy theories.
Well, I am bemoaning this from an American angle as an astronomical waste. I don't know where I'd even begin to look up the cost, but each of his record setting number of campaign appearences around the US cost millions each......and none of them sailed across the ocean in an aAIRCRAFT CARRIER!!!
packed with hundreds of US marines will be anchored off the west coast of Scotland during the G8 summit, according to security sources.
The assault ship, also laden with helicopters