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.

 

Newspaper reports military mum on destination of 6-ship convoy

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
I know the big bad Americans could not possibly help. Actually that is what this is, it part the relief effort, perhaps the secrecy is due to the Burmese governments stand on things. LOL also all of you military experts lol. thats a pretty crappy invasion force.


It is very possible that America needs an invasion force for a 'relief effort'. Afterall, remember how America decided to 'liberate' Iraq?

Nothing like FORCING help upon others who just don't seem to understand that we are HELPING them. I think the people of Iraq need a translator to tell them that we are just there to help.




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
The article says there are 3 amphibious assault ships, a cruiser and two destroyers - plus helicopter support. Does anyone really think we'd send a convoy of assault ships and destroyers to HELP someone..?


Most definitely! Those ships are basically floating military bases. The larger the ship the better equiped the galleys are to provide relief food, the on-board medical centers are to provide triage support, they can carry obscene quantities of fresh water, and they can provide a steady stream of helicopters back and forth carrying these supplies and victims in need of immediate medical aid directly from the ships to the land. Those amphibious assault ships are used for alot more than just transporting battle ready troops, as well. They can transport huge loads of supplies or injured who don't require immediate airlift, but still need to be moved to an aid station. Obviously on any situation where you have a large massing of American ships in international water you're going to need some pretty significant protection, which is why they also are sending some "body guards" along for the trip.

It really is depressing to see this being scrutinized so much, actually. If we didn't send any help there, we'd be brutally criticized and called heartless. So, as we always do, we send help to them and what happens? Some of our own citizens try to make it into an alterior motive action by the government. Nice way to continue the "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" assault Bush has spent the last 7 and a half years working under. Seriously, bravo!



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostNemesis

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
I know the big bad Americans could not possibly help. Actually that is what this is, it part the relief effort, perhaps the secrecy is due to the Burmese governments stand on things. LOL also all of you military experts lol. thats a pretty crappy invasion force.


It is very possible that America needs an invasion force for a 'relief effort'. Afterall, remember how America decided to 'liberate' Iraq?

Nothing like FORCING help upon others who just don't seem to understand that we are HELPING them. I think the people of Iraq need a translator to tell them that we are just there to help.


I believe he meant the secrecy was probably because the Burmese government asked for this to keep on the down low as long as possible. If the US appears to suddenly show up and simply starts helping people, then the Burmese government can take the satnce of "We didn't want you here and don't like the fact that you are here, but since you are here and helping out we'll let you stay. *wink*wink*nudge*nudge*" I don't believe the actual government of Burma minds us being there helping whatsoever, but they percieve that their people might take issue with it, especially if it was something that was worked out in advance between the two governments. It's a save face move, not an America forcing move.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by zoso28
i know that part of the nimitz group that was in the persian gulf is headed to africa and i know that piracy is out of control off the somalian coast and i know that the u.n. passed a resolution that foreign navies(mainly france and u.s.) could enter somali waters. put 2 and 2 together and it equals bad times for the pirates. just do a little research on any news site and it becomes obvious what is going on


Doesn't sound like anykind of inside info to me.

Sounds to me like you are lying to us.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 

sorry you feel that way, i was just trying to participate in the thread. you can find plenty of news stories about the u.n. resolution and the other info will come to light in time.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by zoso28
sorry you feel that way, i was just trying to participate in the thread. you can find plenty of news stories about the u.n. resolution and the other info will come to light in time.


So, are you admitting to knowingly posting false info?

Isn't there something about that in the T&C?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 

in no way am i admitting to false info. i posted info i got from a reliable and involved source. i could go into more detail and specifics, but that would be unprofessional at this point. remember loose lips sink ships. furthermore, i am certainly not the only person with this info, as many people are involved.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by zoso28
in no way am i admitting to false info. i posted info i got from a reliable and involved source. i could go into more detail and specifics, but that would be unprofessional at this point. remember loose lips sink ships. furthermore, i am certainly not the only person with this info, as many people are involved.


You are telling us that your source was open media?

What kind of inside info is that? Is there some other source of this info that you have that you are not willing to admit to?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by RabbitChaser


On board were Marines from the Camp Pendleton-based 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which took part in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 2004 tsunami relief efforts in Indonesia and additional tours in Iraq, according to the report.


I could not find any supporting articles, but one must take notice when you read the 2nd paragraph of the above excerpts. They left from San Diego on Sunday -- 5500 sailors.

And to all the poo-pooers... I'm not "crying wolf" here... just keeping my eye on him.

www.stripes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5/7/2008 by RabbitChaser]


RC: If it's the 15th MEU, which it sounds like it is, then they are on a regular rotational WestPac. When I did my time in the USMC, I was part of the 13th MEU, and we were on a regular deployment schedule.

I don't see anything ominous here. As usual, the MEU's destinations and dates of arrival are classified-as is the movement of any troop units.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Found this. Doesn't say exactly where they are going but does state what they are deploying for.

6 Navy Ships Deploy With 5,000 Troops



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RabbitChaser
 


Im just wanted to say that I thought it was funny, I thought this was a story about some ones mom going to intercept a convoy, lol...

"give me back my son!"

And I was on MEU, and we are usually pretty "mum" about our destination...



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


I am pretty sure, there was no cyclone killing 100,000 people in which we were replying to. I too can compare apples to oranges. I actually think we should not have gone into Iraq, but I do know ALL military operations are not based around war and our young American men and women do get out there and help the world in a beneficial ways sometimes.

And I was referring to the Burmese government not really wanted to ask for help because of their policy or at least show they want help is more so the case. But as Birdman stated, "well since your here ok" stance will be taken by them.

IMHO at least.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by zoso28
 


Does this article shed light on what you guys are referring to about Somalia...?

Amnesty Intl: Ethiopian troops commit atrocities in Somalia

NAIROBI, Kenya -- A leading human rights group on Tuesday accused Ethiopian troops in Somalia of killing civilians and committing atrocities, including slitting people's throats, gouging out eyes and gang-raping women.

Ethiopia's government said the report was unbalanced and "categorically wrong."

"The testimony we received strongly suggests that war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity have been committed by all parties to the conflict in Somalia and no one is being held accountable," Kagari said.


Willing Executioners: America's Bipartisan Atrocity Deepens in Somalia

Do you want to know what the entire American political establishment -- Democrat and Republican, conservative and "progressive" -- really stands for? Do you want to know what they all support, whole-heartedly, without the slightest objection or demur?

These Ethiopian troops were armed, trained and funded by the Bush Administration, then sent into Somalia as a proxy army for yet another Terror War "regime change" operation in late 2006. American military forces have been directly involved in the operation, on the side of the invaders, throughout the conflict, from the very beginning to this day -- as evidenced by the U.S. missile attack last week that killed at least two dozen civilians in the course of an "extrajudicial" assassination of a Somali insurgent leader.

American forces have bombed fleeing refugees, slaughtered innocent herdsmen and destroyed villages in attempts to assassinate a handful of individual alleged, on shaky and specious evidence, to be "part of" or "associated with" or "linked to" al Qaeda. American agents have seized refugees from the Somali war, including U.S. citizens, and had them "renditioned" to the notorious prisons of the Ethiopian dictatorship. And as we have noted here many times, the Bush Administration has sent in death squads to "kill anyone left alive" after American strikes.


Is this what you guys are referring to...?


U.S. Airstrike Kills Somali Accused of Links to Al-Qaeda
Killing of civilians now routine in Somalia
Attacks on Civilians in Somalia
Black Hawk Rising: CIA Warlords Take Control in Mogadishu
Blood Harvest: The Terror War Bears Horrific Fruit in Somalia
Somalia: Deadly battle rages between Ethiopia soldiers, insurgents

[edit on 5/9/2008 by RabbitChaser]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404
Heh, I had read a few posts before I got the 'mum = secret' bit. I'm a tad slow today - I thought a soldier's mother managed to get onboard to check up on her kid




Yep I thought why would they allow a mother to go from ship to ship? I thought she was going to her kid. LOL


I wonder what this really does mean? Could it be there going to Iran? or is this the wrong?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join