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.

 

Whitehouse in Panic mode, as a ADDITIONAL a/c arrives in the gulf.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

3rd US aircraft carrier heads to the Gulf

10/07/2007 Another US Navy aircraft carrier is heading towards the Middle East, boosting the number of the giant warships in the region to three, the navy said in a statement on Tuesday. The nuclear-powered USS Enterprise and its strike group will join the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz in the navy's Fifth Fleet area of operation, which includes Gulf waters off Iran.
"The Enterprise is heading to Fifth Fleet waters and is not replacing any other ships in the area," a US Navy spokesperson said without elaborating.

www.almanar.com.lb...

3x A/C in the gulf?
thats quite a bit of firepower, especially when Iraq's starting to appear all but lost and talks of withdrawl are rife.


Tuesday, July 10, 2007
WASHINGTON NEWS
White House In "Panic Mode" Over Iraq
Administration officials yesterday denied President Bush was considering a "gradual" pullout from Iraq in light of plummeting GOP support for his policies, as the New York Times had reported in Monday's edition. The AP reports the White House said Bush "is not considering a withdrawal of US forces," and the Financial Times calls the White House's message "defiant" in the face of "intensifying bipartisan pressure." The Los Angeles Times also says "the White House brushed off calls from a growing chorus of Republican lawmakers to change course in the conflict," while McClatchy runs a similar report under the headline "Bush Stays Course, Rebuffs Demand For Change."

www.usnews.com...
Panic Mode?
Im not liking this at all.




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
This reminds me of all the prophecies where a US carrier will be sunk and WWIII will break out- BTW, Its supposed to be "staged"

Lets see what happens.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
And so it begins. Not a good sign at all. It almost sounds like the beginning of a bigger War about to happen. I honestly feel bad for the people of Iraq who got shocked n Awed. I mean not everyone in that country are bad people.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Maybe we should close this thread and continue on this long running post!


IMHO!


3rd Carrier to Persian Gulf Post!



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I've fallen for this in the past, but it just keeps happening and nothing ever goes wrong. Every time there is a brief overlap in the rotation, everyone flips out that we're hitting Iran.

The only sources I can find claiming that we're keeping 3 carriers there is the Lebanese source you gave and an Iranian service which says we're sending a 4th to back them up (probably referring to the Truman, which deploys in the fall).
www.presstv.ir...

The AP is reporting that Stennis is coming out soon and that for a couple of months in late summer-early fall the Enterprise will probably be the only carrier in the gulf unless we either extend the Nimitz or speed up deployment of the Truman.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I agree with Vagabond.

U.S. to keep just 2 carrier groups in Gulf
USS Enterprise Will Engage in One-For-One Swap, Joining USS Nimitz

I'm sure the two CSG's are adequate for most contingencies.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
This is old news, and not particularly alarming.

At the time of the Nimitz's departure, there was a HUGE western military presence in the Gulf. The US had 2 carrier strike groups: USS Stennis & USS Eisenhower, 2 Amphibious Carrier Strike Groups: USS Bonhomme Richard & USS Boxer, as well as the Carrier Strike Group led by the French nuclear carrier Charles De Gaulle. Plus, the Brits had about 6 frigates, minesweepers, and other warships.

So there were 5 flat tops and their Strike Groups and support ships, plus plenty of small, fast Brit ships to intercept any fast moving missile ships and a pack of minesweepers.

So this "carrier arrives to relieve another carrier" news is old & stale. AND the thread/article title is particularly knee-jerk and alarmist.






[edit on 10-7-2007 by Reality Hurts]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I saw the same as well on Fox and CNN. The Enterprise will replace one of the others not be an addition to.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:52 PM
link   

"The Enterprise is heading to Fifth Fleet waters and is not replacing any other ships in the area," a US Navy spokesperson said without elaborating.


doesnt that mean its NOT replacing any other ships?



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Consider the source agit. It's a lebanese source. Their audience gives them an interest in hype and ominous warnings. Its not as if the schedule was suddenly changed. This is right on cue. It's normal. That's why respectable media aren't making the same mistake twice. They learned during the previous "carrier surges".



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Thanks Vagabond way to keep things in perspective.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Just out of curiosity what is the US carrier status in the Med and around the horn of africa?

Because it's the combined number in those + gulf, that is the detrminating factor in US naval precence. Possible attack to Iran will be done from other staging areas too, in addition to the forces in the gulf.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
This reminds me of all the prophecies where a US carrier will be sunk and WWIII will break out- BTW, Its supposed to be "staged"

Lets see what happens.



Ooooo, I'd love to see what it takes to sink one of those babys (if thats poss without any one getting hurt!
)

Watched them scuttle one of the second world war era ones the other month on some program, took a hell of a lot of doing. This there was a thread somewhere.

Nothing conventional Iran has will do it - unless they send everything all at once possably.

If they have managed to get their hands on a few nukes that will do it. Best bet would be detionation right under the keel IMO, break its spine.

Logistically speaking about as impossable as, I do'nt know a certain day in Sept 01?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Just out of curiosity what is the US carrier status in the Med and around the horn of africa?

Because it's the combined number in those + gulf, that is the detrminating factor in US naval precence. Possible attack to Iran will be done from other staging areas too, in addition to the forces in the gulf.

Excellent point.

From various mainstream news sources and from the Navy site itself, here are the general locations of US Aircraft Carriers that are currently at sea:

Supercarriers:
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Arabian Gulf
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) - North Arabian Sea
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Arabian Sea
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) - Atlantic Ocean, training
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Atlantic Ocean, training
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean, Everett Washington
USS Kitty Hawk (CVN 63)- Pacific Ocean, Brisbane Australia

Amphibious Carriers:
USS Wasp (LHD 1) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Essex (LHD 2) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bohomme Richard (LHD 6) - Arabian Gulf
USS Juneau (LPD 10) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga ('___' 46) - Pacific Ocean



EDIT- The USS Kitty Hawk is scheduled for decommission upon its return to the US from Australia. It is not currently outfitted for battle.



[edit on 11-7-2007 by Reality Hurts]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
It bears mentioning that our carriers over there have been handling more than just Iraq and muscle flexing at Iran. Before Stennis showed up, when the Ike was alone in the area, part of its group (almost certainly including the carrier itself) participated in operations against the UIC in Somalia. After that we kept two carriers in the area.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Carrier surge 7 months ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Eisenhower involved in Ethiopian invasion of Somalia

Stepping back to one carrier makes since now. Two carriers doing exercises off the coast of Iran was good before the talks, and it would have come in handy if CJTF-HOA got in trouble helping the Ethiopians and Somali TFG. Now that the battle of Mogadishu is pretty much over and the UIC has been reduced to suicide bombings, US forces aren't as important at the moment and having a carrier on hand for that eventuality is less important, at least for a couple of months.

If we ever see a legitimate carrier surge over there, my advice is to check on the latest news vis a vis somaliland before automatically assuming that it's directed at Iran. The Ethiopia and Eritrea WILL fight if the TFG tries to forcibly assert control over Somaliland, and in a nightmare scenario that could spark violence between North and South Sudan if the South backs Ethiopia (which is in their future interest if they intend to declare independence come 2012), not to mention the potential for the AU to get involved between Eritrea and Ethiopia if all that came down.

It's a long shot. I'm just saying that if it ever started to come together, it would definately cause the US to send a carrier and an MEU to make sure that everybody was listening very carefully to what we said about the issue, and would trigger a lot of false assumptions about Iran among those who aren't following the global chess match.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join