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.
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.
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?"
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.