It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


EGYPT: Pentagon moving warships, preparing for possible evacuations

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

well ... i bet you would laugh if it said that they sent 5 star cuisers to pick them up.
Ofcourse it's warships. All evacuations are made by military and not travel agents.

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by schuyler

I thought it was against policy to have civilians on a Military craft?

It can't be a hard policy. They have Tiger Cruises all the time where kids ride the ship with their parents to see what they do on the job. But I'm thinking it's an assumption that these ships are there to evacuate anyone.

I keep pretty close tabs on Navy ship deployments. On the one hand these ships were already in the area under normal deployments, so you could say this is 'opportunistic' rather than planned ahead of time. The Enterprise just happened to be in the area. The Lincoln/Vinson hand-off just happened to be at this time.

Although the Navy uses the Med for transit to and from the Arabian Gulf for East Coast based strike and Amphibious Groups, it is NOT NORMAL to have one of each in both the Arabian Gulf and the Med. The only alternative is to go around the horn of Africa, which takes too long. So they use the Suez.

NORMAL is one carrier Strike Group and one Amphibious Ready Group in the Arabian (Persian) Gulf. However, recently Gates has had two CVNs in the Arabian Gulf as a show of power to Iran (and has said as much). What I think has happened in this case is that the Vinson was set to relieve the Lincoln and be joined by the Enterprise for another bit of saber rattling against Iran with the Lincoln, which is low on fuel, going back first to Everett, then to the East Coast for a refueling stint in the shipyard.

Also not normal is the Kearsarge low on Marines, having lent 1,000 to the Afganistan effort. That leaves 2,000, maybe 2,500 Marines on board, and though they can carry quite a sting, that is not enough to mount any invasions.

It takes a good six months to work up a deployment, so the presence of these ships is decidedly not in response to conditions in Egypt; it's accidental. That's not to say they won't take advantage of it, but I seriously doubt these ships are intended for use in an 'evacuation.' The logistics of that are tremendous.
edit on 2/6/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:50 AM
Hello n Good day ,

i have read all of your replies regarding deploying the marines as a precaution to evacuate Americans from Egypt , as i my self is from Egypt , i just want to ask if this is intended for war against Egypt , because you know Americans r deployed in Afghanistan to fight , in Iraq to fight and they fought during the times of desert storm war in Kuwait , don't you all think why this whole amount of war ships carrying 800 troops each , why the air craft carrier is now in the eastern Mediterranean ? im just asking because im worried if this will lead to anything ....right now all i see is a fog of war ?!

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by alaadarwish

Once again, the presence of the Enterprise in the Mediterranean is a result of a SCHEDULED deployment that was to take it through the Suez and into the Arabian Gulf. The Enterprise amounts to a few squadrons of F/A-18s. That's all. It's not an invasion force. The Kearsarge is now in the Red Sea. It is an amphibious Strike Group, but it is SHORT-STAFFED because they lent 1200 Marines to Afghnaistan. The forces afloat in the area are nowhere near enough to do anything rash, which is what it would be.

Let me use an analogy here. Remember the story of Waterloo? Napolean was suffering because his piles hurt. He had taken opium for it and was therefore not in top notch shape mentally. In the middle of the battle, which was more or less a stalemate, he decided to take a nap. As he slept the British decided to retreat about 100 yards to get out of the way of French artillery fire. When they moved their "British Squares" the general in charge of the French forces saw it as a wholesale retreat. He got excited and sent the cavalry to attack. They rushed over the hill only to find the British Squares fully intact and they were cut to pieces. About that time Napolean awoke from his nap and was outraged. he said, "You never send in the calvary without infantry support!" That mistake, along with the presence of the Prussians, cost him the victory and became his Waterloo.

It's the same situation here. What the United States has in the area is a very powerful calvary. Indeed, without a doubt the most powerful in the world. But there is no infantry. A handful of Marines and helicopters is simply not big enough to accomplish anything. About all that force is good for is to protect a border, such as the one betwen Egypt and Israel, but that border does not need protecting. First, there aren't any significant Egyptian troops in the Sinai at all (this is a treaty issue) and second, the Egyptian military is hardly focused on invading Israel. At long last hey are not that stupid.

When the United States invaded Iraq (the second time) the entire US 2nd Army--ALL of it--was parked in Turkey. The entire US 3rd Army--ALL of it--was parked in Kuwait. Turkey did not allow the 2nd Army to cross Turkish soil and invade from the North, so the whole operation fell on the 3rd Army, and it was a cakewalk. When the United States actually gets serious about military matters, it attacks with overwhelming force so that there is no chance of failure. Today that force is simply unavailable.

The Enterprise Strike Group is not so much on station preparing to attack Egypt. It's stuck. Sailing a complete Carrier Strike Group (ten ships or so) through the Suez Canal is probably not a good idea right now. Even if their intention is completely benign (and it is because they were going to do it anyway. They do it every six months or so and this is right on scehdule.) the Egyptians themselves, as you have so eloquently demonstrated, would freak out and claim they were there to invade.

But you have to ask yourself, Why would they? There's no reason. It would be completely counter-productive. It would enrage the Arab world, not that they are not in a perpetual state of rage anyway, and it would serve no good purpose. The BEST thing for the US to do right now is just chill out and let the Egyptian military handle it. Except for some silly rhetoric from Obama, that appears to be exactly what is happening.

So, the answer is NO. No because it is physically impossible and No because it is politically impossible. It won't happen.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 06:22 AM
Alright , i do thank you so much for your complete detailed explanation and i thank you again for your time , Egyptian people don't wish to war with any one , we are a peaceful people we like everybody.

Mubarak is down now with the effort that came from the Egyptians , you will see a new Egypt !

just when the times become more fine i hope that you guys will pay a nice visit to us

by the way , i have met some Americans that were enjoying so much the revolution and the victory ceremony and they were enjoying it so much.

Best Rgrds !

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:05 AM
I just want to add the following,

Egypt wants peace , the people themselves r peaceful n friendly.
At the same time the people of Egypt themselves r proud warriors
always ready for any one who wants to touch Egypt land badly
unlike any other Arabs with respect to all , we r different.
anyhow if Israel tryed to play foul games with us we will screw them up
and i think they already learned a nice lesson in 1973 war.
im just proud to be Egyptian and will always be , respects to all !
edit on 13-2-2011 by alaadarwish because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in