It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Demands Aircraft Carrier for G8 Summit

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
The Scotsman

Key points
• America has demanded heavy US military presence during G8 summit
• Advisors want to impose "30-minute total travel exclusion periods"
• Disruption of road, rail and air services throughout country expected

An aircraft 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, is expected to be dispatched as the United States armed forces prepare their own massive security operation to protect the president, George Bush, during the Gleneagles summit in July.

A fleet of Galaxy C-5 planes, carrying armoured limousines and the helicopters that will take Bush and his entourage to the venue, is expected to touch down at Prestwick airport.

The US is also believed to be insisting on having its own command post so it can act independently of the British police and military if there is a threat to the president.

A military source said: "The Americans want to do everything themselves. They want to have their own helicopters; their own armoured limousines. This happens at every summit like this, and it always causes tension between America and their hosts.

"The aircraft carrier is about giving America the capability to do lots of things with people, helicopters and the like. They also want their own command post if Bush decides they have to carry out their own operation."

Meanwhile, security chiefs are planning a ban on all plane, train and vehicle movements around the airport when the world’s most powerful leaders fly in for the meeting.

Advisers want to impose "30-minute total travel exclusion periods" around each flight arriving at Prestwick with a world leader on board, to thwart protesters and terrorists.

The effect could be motorway gridlock, as well as an air-traffic nightmare for holidaymakers. This would mean all roads around the Ayrshire airport being closed, all trains being halted and all commercial flights being grounded for the arrival and departure of Bush, Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac and other world leaders for the summit from July 6-8.

Traffic experts say the "lockdowns" could lead to 30-mile tailbacks on the M77, as the effects of the security clampdown are felt as far north as Glasgow and south into Dumfriesshire.

Top-ranking officials met at Prestwick last week to finalise details of the operation.

A security source said: "This is by far the biggest security operation ever mounted on Scottish soil. It may well cause widespread disruption, but that cannot be avoided. It’s a small price to pay."

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.


At what point will the world's leaders seek some level of parity in consideration for the sovereignty of their respective nations? Especially allied nations? I see this as complete disrespect.

Domestically, how is it that we can spend the untold millions on sending an AIRCRAFT CARRIER to protect this!?!?





100's of machines & Marines, during a "war" where we're severly shorthanded & short supplied?




posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Because thats there job? Rather you like him or not
Bush is the president of the united states, He is the Commander And cheif of the armed services, If they think he needs a carrier and protection, then he will get it, as would ANY U.S President, A grenade was thrown at him a few weeks back ffs, they arent taking any chances.



We have carriers, ships and fleets all over the world, Our whole military isnt and will never all be in the middle east at the same time, it isnt stretched thin.




[edit on 2-6-2005 by C0le]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
On the one hand, it does seem like a lot of protection for a single person. On the other hand, like him or not he is the commander in chief of the U.S. military and the judicious deployment of security measures would seem to be in keeping with the administration's use of the "powell doctrine" -- use overwhelming forces to ensure the success of the mission, which in this case is the protection of the commander of the armed forces.

Like it or not, it does seem to make sense.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Dont forget, its for the protection of a much hated person. They would have to go thru great lengths just in case, wouldnt they?

Simple. No other president has ever "needed" an iron prezmobile. This one does.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Spending this much time to protect someone who I wouldnt shed a tear for if he got fragged? If hes that paranoid, why the hell doesnt he just stay home and send an emmisary or something?

What a twat. Paranoia was Nixons undoing, so I can only hope he stays in his bubble. Maybe we wont suffer another 4 years of this is congress can impeach him.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Howdy all,

BT…Long time, no argue. Figured as long as I was coming out of hiding to make a few posts elsewhere, there would be no harm in chiming in here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

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.



Er............ I dont bloody well think so, the Pres can go to hell if he thinks hes going to mess around with another countrys military, especially an ASR squadron. Bush needs to sort his issues out, or get out.
People could lose their lives thanks to this supid man...............ive always hated him, but this is a new low.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

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.


Or 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.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

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.


Oh I like that plan much better, the bomb could be an accident of course unless some sharks can be trained to carry out missions.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Holding their summit on a nice ship would certainly ease the burden on the taxpayer and the need to disrupt peoples lives with travel restrictions etc.

It would also keep the protestors away from them. This is nothing more than a blatant "in your face" egotistical back-slapping fest by a bunch of power-crazed idiots.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Howdy all,

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!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
This is going to be one hilarious conference.

The amount of security leaks regarding the plans is just mindboggling.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I may be wrong here, but doesent every Sitting President who attends these things make provision for his own security? Every time a President goes to a confrence abroad there seems to be a big whoha about the disruption his visit make, not just president Bush but every President?
Like i said, i may be wrong.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
sounds pretty misleading to say Bush needs an aircraft carrier for protection, sounds more like the Secret Service requested it
.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
This seems a little silly doesn't it?

If the presidents life comes under threat while on UK soil, how is an aircraft carrier going to help? what are they going to do? Flatten Scotland, come on.

Pointless.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
I dont think he really needs an Aircraft Carrier. I see it more as a visible projection of power, after all not many countries have a spare Super Carrier lying around for Presidential security, in fact strike that NO other country has a spare Super Carrier spare for Presidential security.
But we got him beat on the Aircraft carrier, the UK is one BIG Aircraft Carrier lol



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Um, yeah, like, um, protect the global leaders. If you're saying they don't know how much protection they need and/or they don't know how much protection they need, um, you could be wrong. Give em the protection they need, whenever they need it. Last time there was some talk about some grenade was lobbed at someone somewhere.

I say, give em what they need.

And on top on the, I'd like a burger, fries and a coke.



[edit on 2-6-2005 by pfunkarocka]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Sometimes i have to laugh at our American friends , they always do things over the top making them look silly. I'm looking foreword to the TV news showing Bush waving his arms surrounded by men in sunglasses talking into their arms, hope he has a thick coat on as its a bit chilly in Scotland.
Please don't think I'm anti American , far from it George and the Simpson's keep me smiling.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I still fail to see how some say this is a waste of money and resources, You do realise that if they werent protecting the president, theyd be off burning up tons of fuel on TRAINING EXCERCISES right? If anything they ARENT wasting money and resources.. they are using them wisely,


And for the record They arent sending a friggin Nimitz


They are sending an LHD


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




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join