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.

 

Navy Sending 7 Carrier Strike Groups to sea; Destination Unknown

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Found this while surfing today :

Massive Carrier deployment planned to show the flag.

At a time when there is considerable press about US forces being stretched too thing, the Navy is stepping up and conducting a "Surge" exercise deploying six carriers to a "spot East of Europe" in a demonstration of US power projection, according to Navy Times. The demonstration is called Summer Pulse 04, and is a test of the Navy’s ability to deploy six aircraft carriers within 30 days of a national emergency and two more in the succeeding 60 days. The Fleet Response Plan was born following the first phase of 2003’s Operation Iraqi Freedom, when seven of the Navy’s 12 carriers were deployed during and immediately following those combat operations. Deploying from bases around the world are the Truman, the John F. Kennedy, the Kitty Hawk; the George Washington and John C. Stennis, and the Ronald Reagan.

[borrowed from] www.iraqwar.info... cle&sid=1110

also the Navy Times says this :
www.navytimes.com...

The demonstration, called Summer Pulse 04, is the Navy’s first test of its ability to “surge” six aircraft carriers within 30 days of a national emergency and two more in the succeeding 60 days. The Fleet Response Plan was born following the first phase of 2003’s Operation Iraqi Freedom, when seven of the Navy’s 12 carriers were deployed during and immediately following those combat operations.

“It really shows the skill and ability of the Navy to flex,” said Capt. Michael Groothousen, the Truman’s commanding officer. “And we may actually spend less time at sea doing it this way.”


Now, when I first posted this, my thoughts were mainly, nothing to worry about, just training exercises. However one more paragraph in the Navy Times story caught my eye...

The actual dates of the demonstration and many details have yet to be announced. Groothousen, however, announced over the ship’s loudspeaker system that after Truman and Enterprise take part in the JFK exercise, Truman would sail east to the “European theater of operations” and, barring a national emergency while at sea, return home in late July.

So, I guess I see where a lot of you are thinking that something big could happen, The Truman would sail east to the "Eropean theater of operations", hmmm, maybe we are setting ourselves in place for an "attack" ?




posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
Groothousen, however, announced over the ship’s loudspeaker system that after Truman and Enterprise take part in the JFK exercise, Truman would sail east to the “European theater of operations” and, barring a national emergency while at sea, return home in late July.


Good catch. I'm not necessarily in that camp ("something's going to happen") but this is interesting isn't it? Why would someone make a statement like that? I would expect it goes without saying that expected return dates are always contingent on the ship not being necessary as circumstances warrant.

That sure sounds like a hint to me.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I don't think we will see or know of any movements until
after the Olympics. After all, Greece was the
'birthplace of democracy'
Sanc'.



posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Don't worry. Nothing could be happening because the carriers are just now leaveing. This was on the USS Enterprises website for a long time.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
OK, now I do not know the voracity of the claim but I heard on the radio (on my way to work) that the rumor going around the D.C military journalists is that the Naval excercise is actually going to be a blockade of Irans sea ports. AGAIN, I have no idea if this is true or not but if it is hold on to your hats. Blockades are an act of war and with Iran being as skitish as it has been recently this might, if it's true, make them feel forced to act.
Has anyone else heard anything like this?



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by observer
OK, now I do not know the voracity of the claim but I heard on the radio (on my way to work) that the rumor going around the D.C military journalists is that the Naval excercise is actually going to be a blockade of Irans sea ports. AGAIN, I have no idea if this is true or not but if it is hold on to your hats. Blockades are an act of war and with Iran being as skitish as it has been recently this might, if it's true, make them feel forced to act.
Has anyone else heard anything like this?


Well its probably the only Bush can invade Iran for its oil without losing the election.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by observer
OK, now I do not know the voracity of the claim but I heard on the radio (on my way to work) that the rumor going around the D.C military journalists is that the Naval excercise is actually going to be a blockade of Irans sea ports. AGAIN, I have no idea if this is true or not but if it is hold on to your hats. Blockades are an act of war and with Iran being as skitish as it has been recently this might, if it's true, make them feel forced to act.
Has anyone else heard anything like this?


Sorry observer no. But Iran still has ALL the kit from the 'wayward incursion' by the
British patrol boats. Iran displayed for all to see that the weapons and other tech',
was actually U.S. supplied. The U.K. MoD refuse to discuss this.
Sanc'.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   


Target Iran - Blockade
On May 31, 2003 President Bush announced the establishment of the Proliferation Security Initiative, also known as the Madrid Initative, which would result in the creation of international agreements allowing the US and its allies to search ships transporting illicit weapons, missile technology, and suspect cargo. The Madrid Initiative would also allow the U.S. and its allies to search suspect planes. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Australia endorsed it. The Proliferation Security Initiative reflects the international support for an active approach to prevent global proliferation, most especially in rouge states like Iran and North Korea.

Under the Proliferation Security Initiative, a multinational blockade would be enacted in the Persian Gulf, similar to the current naval blockade of North Korea would prevent nations who have previously shipped illicit materials into the country. In order to jump-start the Proliferation Security initiative, the US has begun work with its allies to expand and improve its ability to stop illegal transfers.

The December 2002 seizure of a North Korean shipment of missile parts to Yemen is a model for future operations. Using intelligence assets the United States monitored a vessel that departed North Korea and headed for the Persian Gulf with a Spanish vessel intercepting it while it was off the Arabian Peninsula.

The United States and allied countries have had a substantial naval presence in the Persian Gulf region for several decades and are experienced in conducting Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO).

At any given time the United States usually has one carrier strike group and an amphibious ready group present in the region in addition to other assets and allied vessels that are conducting routine exercises and MIO.

Provided that the United States maintains the sane general force presence the United States could have at least 20 vessels available to enforce a blockade or to intecept suspect vessels.

However, a recent increase in cargo flights between Iran and North Korea highlight the loopholes inherent in any blockade regime. Direct flights between Tehran and Pongyang previously numbered only two per year. Between April and June 2003 there were six direct flights between the two cities alone. The ability to fly directly to and from the two countries would certainly inhibit US options as the prefered method of boarding aircraft occurs when an aircraft is grounded when it stops at an airport and is refueled. Unless thwe United States and its allies adopt a more aggressive strategy direct flights may be immune to coalition inspections.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   


US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas
9 June 2004: The reason for the US breakup with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W.Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in.

An invasion plan prepared by the Pentagon conceives of amphibious attacks on Iran from the Arabian Sea, with a provocative US naval blockade in the Gulf of Oman to choke its sealanes of communications, and the British navy is developing three islands taken on a ten-year lease from Oman to give up to America in case of a war.

Besides these attacks from open waters, the US has also planned land assaults from Iraq, where its troops will be stationed for at least two years after the 30-June handover of sovereignty, and it will mount massive air reconnaissance and surveillance operations from its bases in Pakistan, whose leases will be extended when they expire in January 2005.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Found by SIRR1

America's military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory, a senior officer has disclosed.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Who moved this out of RATS and into medical???



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall Who moved this out of RATS and into medical???
The author asked me to move this to current events.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
lol...i didn't know what forum it was so I looked at the icon...

medical

pfffffffft

*
*



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
The excersise will be completed on July 27th. That information is accurate, and was received through military commanders.


Mr. M



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Iran says Britain "incorrect" over captured sailors

Iran has defended its arrest last week of an eight-man British Royal Navy unit, asserting that London's contention they were forced into the Islamic republic's waters was "incorrect".
www.abc.net.au...

Still no mention of, "why were an eight-man British Royal Navy unit using
U.S. kit"?
Sanc'.



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   
But Mr Hoon said: "In a recent debriefing the crews have said that they were operating inside the Iraqi border and were forcibly escorted into Iranian territorial waters.
"Our assessment continues and will be greatly assisted by the retrieval of navigational information in the Global Positioning System equipment carried by the crews."
Mr Hoon said the Iranians had failed to comply with Tuesday's deadline to return equipment carried by the men including three boats, radios and navigational equipment, weapons and ammunition."
news.bbc.co.uk...

Probably because they DON'T WANT TO!
Sanc'.
edit link

[edit on 1-7-2004 by sanctum]



posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
When this all started happening I asked my friend who is in the navy (UK) if he had heard anything and if he knew what the reason for it was. He said that it sounded like they were heading out to transfer weapons or something like that, and that he hadn't heard anything (hes quite high up). This was a month ago and he's back at sea now, and he still hasn't been told anything, and I think there are too many ships involved for a simple weapons transfer. We also got talking about the 8 british navy peeps who went into enemy waters, and agreed that the story the news is putting out sounded completely implausible. It sounds to me like something the SBS would do, some sort of covert ops, but that is just my opinion don't hold me to that


As to what actually could be going on with the fleets, I have absolutely no idea. I don't think its been mentioned here yet, but in the other threads ive been reading someone suggested this: Because of the large clouds of dust or whatever in the atmosphere at the minute, our nuclear detection is being rendered useless for a certain amount of time, and bringing ships out to sea is being considered an act of "good faith" by all the nations involved. Anyone heard anything or debunked this idea yet?

[edit on 1-7-2004 by slick]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join