Bush Demands Aircraft Carrier for G8 Summit

Don't you Americans think how much it costs you to have over the top security like this or don't you care how the Government spends your money>

I sincerely doubt that President Bush himself is demanding an aircraft carrier. He doesn't make such demands or even decisions on his security. The Secret Service makes those calls. It is obviously the US Government that feels that we should have a carrier there, and not necessarily the President himself.

So quit hatin' on the guy for every little thing. God forbid something ever happen to him, all you wackos will be saying "why didn't we have a military presence there?"

Originally posted by Rasputin13So quit hatin' on the guy for every little thing.

God forbid something ever happen to him, all you wackos will be saying "why didn't we have a military presence there?"

I really don't give a damn if something were to happen to this president of yours, nor would I state any such thing about the military, quite the contrary in fact.

Why? Because that is what some of you fail to understand, not everyone is American, much less a card carrying-Bush American. The lesson is that you need to understand that the world is not limited to the co-ordinates roughly between the 49th to 78th and 65th to 176th parallels and start understanding that there is more to this planet than your little box of existence

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Nope sorry your wrong the world does indeed revolve around us, we control minipulate, and always get our way and theres nothing you can do about it hahahahahahahahaha.

1. What C0le said : It's not an aircraft carrier, it's an assault ship

2. What Rasputin13 said : Nowhere in the article does it say Bush demanded the ship. Where does that come from in the thread title?

Yes, of course this is a tremendous waste/overkill. Yes, they will be running training exercises PLUS going on this wildly expensive detour.
No, it is not necessary - again, this is a FIRST WORLD NATION at which this confrence will be held, with the security forces of one of the worlds top military powers playing host. YEs, it is being done to send a message, just the one all will read from it is that we wipe our azzes with C-notes & could care less about fully funding No Child Left Behind, Georgie needs a big ship!!
Yes, the president's office would DIRECTLY AUTHORIZE AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER'S USAGE - these are the Mayberry Machivellis who do EVERYTHING from a point of political concern FIRST, practicallity & what's best for the country maybe second or third.
So, the new rationalization is that it's not a SUPER CARRIER, just one big enough for Galaxy 5-5's ( a fleet of em)?
No one doubts or argues a nation's need to protect their diplomats, but to bridge a Cold War era dud grenade that landed no where near it's possible blast radius to Dim Son as justification to send a mini-armada to an allied nations turf....well....that's just too damn funny if it weren't so sad!

US Navy ships routinely patrol the waters of the entire globe, and to have a large naval vessel in the vicinity of the G-8 summit to support Pres. Bush is a) not unusual at all, b) probably not going to interfere with it's normal operations, and c) probably a good opportunity to train and prepare for its role as a mobile command post.

If the usage of this ship in this role was a waste of money, there are enough watchdog groups, including the US Congress itself, that would have been making alot of noise by now, which they haven't.

I realize that it is in the Scotish tradition to be "frugal" in the ways of money, but please don't worry - our economy can absorb the hit.


[edit on 3-6-2005 by Pyros]

Originally posted by dgtempe
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.

You keep reaching for new lows with your replies.

Guess Kennedy didn't need a better protected car???

Why not just take your Bush-hate and buzz off!

Perhaps this is a reaction to prior terrorist threats at G8 summits. Prior to 9/11, an Al Qaeda plot was discovered to fly a plane into the building that housed the delegates in an attempt to assasinate GWB (this was 10 weeks before 9/11--couldn't imagine a scenario where terrorists would fly planes into buildings, my a**..)

Italian officials spent $110 million on security and Bush did have the protection of an offshore aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise.

archives.cnn.com...

Apparently, it is not unusual for Bush to bring an aircraft carrier with him to world summits (especially ones that will be protested.. which is typical for any global event he attends), as he did to an APEC summit in Chile last September.

www.ipsnews.net...

Guess having to live inside an armored ship are the consequences for pissing off the entire world...


[edit on 3/6/05 by lmgnyc]

Originally posted by Pyros

US Navy ships routinely patrol the waters of the entire globe, ( Excellent point; but are we normally patrolling UK waters for the UK?) and to have a large naval vessel in the vicinity of the G-8 summit to support Pres. Bush is a) not unusual at all,( I'm speaking for my own expereince, but I've never heard of it during my voting lifetime, which goes back to Reagan.) b) probably not going to interfere with it's normal operations, and c) probably a good opportunity to train and prepare for its role as a mobile command post.
( Transport of armored limos and securing toll roads in an allied nation seems to be off the norm. Protocols exist for a mobile command centers involving the CINC, and none of them will ever have the CINC on water, so that's out. Securing some other level of VIP will never get this level of role out, so that's out. Pretty much, there's no training scenario for alternate utilization I can think of.)

If the usage of this ship in this role was a waste of money, there are enough watchdog groups, including the US Congress itself, that would have been making alot of noise by now, which they haven't. (Timeline: all of the costs have not been inccurred until it comes to pass; they can speculate, but that would be half cocked. )

I realize that it is in the Scotish tradition to be "frugal" in the ways of money, but please don't worry - our economy can absorb the hit.

( Have you seen economic indicators lately? Have you seen the latest jobs numbers? It's like boxing - it's the cumulative body shots, not the final one to the head, that causes the knockout most times.)

Rationally, we can bemoan this on all levels. Specifically, until the GAO puts a price tag on it, I am & we are best guessing the waste/improper utilization of manpower.

www.nationalreview.com...

Anyway, since the topic is presidents and aircraft carriers, I was reminded of the 1994 commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Normandy landings. President Clinton used the aircraft carrier George Washington to ferry himself, various high-ranking officials, 40 White House aides, and 23 members of the Press Corps across the English Channel. He made remarks on the ship June 5, and the next day he and his entourage went ashore for the ceremonies in France (images of which were later used in campaign commercials). Along with them went dozens of towels and bathrobes lifted from the ship's stores. The Navy investigated and presented the White House a bill for $562. On June 16, 1994, the White House Office of Scheduling and Advance issued a memo to the staff asking that those who took the items please remit payment. No checks were forthcoming, so a member of the office paid the entire bill just to kill the issue.

Nothing new under the sun

also remember that the Pope needs a protection, who most people say the lovest person u can have in existence but sombody decided to shoot him for the fun of it, now present and future Popes need to have protection also that Al Qaeda wanted to kill the Pope back in mid 90s i wonder why?.........

Eaglewingz has it right. An LHA or Helicopter Assault ship is not a Supercarrier. It carries about 15-20 helicopters and maybe 8-10 AV-8B Harrier jets. There is usually a couple of them based with the 6th Fleet in the Med. It is no great expense for them to make a run up to England. Takes about 2 or 3 days each way depending on how fast they want to go. Personally I see nothing wrong with this and it will give the sailors and Marines a chance for some good liberty. England was and always will be one of my favorite places to visit. Remember it costs less to keep a ship in port than it does to keep one at sea. This expense will be even less in England where it is safe to allow the ship to tie up pierside versus anchoring in the harbour. As far as the C-5 goes, one has always accompanied the President on overseas visits for quite a few years now. This aircraft is used to carry the vehicles and even helicopters for use of the President and his security staff.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
As far as the C-5 goes, one has always accompanied the President on overseas visits for quite a few years now. This aircraft is used to carry the vehicles and even helicopters for use of the President and his security staff.

yep, they dont like to do rental cars and other vehicles. nobody likes them. and its not the type u want for the POTUS (President of The United States) to be riding in some small cheap car.

I didn't know that Hertz or Avis rented bullet and bomb proof vehicles. The Secret Service is tasked with the President's security and I don't blame them for wanting to keep as many elements if it as in-house as possible. It would be nice if there was no need for this security, but with the current state of affairs in the world that is not possible. One thing that needs to be mentioned is that this security is for the protection of the President of the United States to me this is more than just the life of the man who happens to hold the office at the present time. The expense didn't bother me when Clinton was the President and it wouldn't bother me if Kerry had won the election (both of whom I can't stand and didn't vote for).

I'm in Ayrshire, but a bit away from Prestwick. People think the aircraft carrier is OTT and just silly, they're far more bothered about the 2000 armed US Marines that will be deployed in the hills around Prestwick (what's the rules of engagement?, who's in control?, can they walk in the hills? etc).

Yes, it takes liability away from the Scottish forces if anything goes wrong but it's also a bit of an insult. I'm sure we're more than capable of protecting our own airspace.

I can't think of any other country that would be allowed to deploy that many armed troops on our soil. 2000 Marines is practically an invasion force. Would the US allow 2000 armed British Marines to be deployed in the US to protect Blair? I doubt it.

These are sham politicians meeting on sacred soil
The Masons of the Scottish Rite dont like the threat of a million Goyim trampling their sacred Edinburgh
In Genoa, the Great Eight frontmen met while the agent provocateurs created mayhem and death on the streets and protestors were beaten up in their sleeping bags and arrested and tortured
No wonder the councellors and cops are ape#

Originally posted by kegs
I'm in Ayrshire, but a bit away from Prestwick. People think the aircraft carrier is OTT and just silly, they're far more bothered about the 2000 armed US Marines that will be deployed in the hills around Prestwick (what's the rules of engagement?, who's in control?, can they walk in the hills? etc).

Yes, it takes liability away from the Scottish forces if anything goes wrong but it's also a bit of an insult. I'm sure we're more than capable of protecting our own airspace.

I can't think of any other country that would be allowed to deploy that many armed troops on our soil. 2000 Marines is practically an invasion force. Would the US allow 2000 armed British Marines to be deployed in the US to protect Blair? I doubt it.

That's kinda funny, they're supposedly landing AF1 at Leuchars so they can bypass Glasgow and the central belt.

Oh, and theres to be a no fly zone that covers the central belt for an hour as air force one comes down.

I agree that it's complete overkill. Besides, Glasgow is a much prettier airport

Originally posted by Rasputin13
So quit hatin' on the guy for every little thing. God forbid something ever happen to him, all you wackos will be saying "why didn't we have a military presence there?"

You wish.

I have an idea. How about they just hold the summit in the US? Every year. Easy.

The last time Bush came to the UK, when he was London, the majority of the Police force were assigned to protect him and the routes he is on.

Whilst they were busy protecting the idiot, my Nan got mugged. In broad daylight.

Bush has made himself hated outside his borders, and that was his choice. If he wants to leave those borders, then he should stand on his own two feet when he does, rather than have people running around after him that sacrifices the safety of the British citizen.

Judge a person's popularity by the amount of bodyguards he/she has.

Originally posted by C0le

Nope sorry your wrong the world does indeed revolve around us, we control minipulate, and always get our way and theres nothing you can do about it hahahahahahahahaha.

As if the world did not know that already.

Needless to say, every bully gets their comeuppance eventually.

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Regensturm]

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Regensturm]

[edit on 4-6-2005 by Regensturm]