Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

USS Enterprise on its way to Libya as America and Britain ramp up threats to enforce no-fly zone abo

page: 7
49
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
U.S.S. Enterprise in being refitted in drydock before being ordered to Libya:


Just couldn't resist...




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Greetings Nano-Gog's

This may be a new word for some but here it is... "MAGOG-WAR", something about when Israel(Is Real?) is surrounded by it's enemy's we all need to think of "REPENT THE END IS HERE"... maybe this is just all according to God's divine war plan... let's all pray God also has a divine mercy plan too... Forgive them for they no not what they do
... looking forward to those Giants... better hide your silicone wives...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.tribulation.com...

Mr X-Flare
edit on 2-3-2011 by CONSPIRACYWARRIOR because: O-Yeah... Alex Jones 2012 President... Mr Sheen shine 2012 press secretary... hide the party favors:lo:
edit on 2-3-2011 by CONSPIRACYWARRIOR because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Gaddafi forces battle for rebel areas



In a speech carried on state TV in Libya, Gaddafi repeated his determination to "fight to the last man and last woman", again claiming popular support for his regime as forces loyal to him fought to wrest cities from control of his opponents. Gaddafi blamed al-Qaida for the 15 days of unrest, and warned thousands of people would die if the US and Nato invaded. "I carried out a revolution in the 70s, handed over power to the people and then rested," he told a loyal audience in Tripoli. Gaddafi said the UN could send fact-finding committees to prove his forces had not fired on peaceful civilians, and said there had been "no protests at all in the east". He said reports of deaths were exaggerated, putting the toll at 150. Other estimates say up to 2,000 have died.


www.guardian.co.uk...


Gadhafi to Obama: Thousands will die in Libya if US intervenes



"Thousands of Libyans" will die if the United States or NATO intervenes, Gadhafi said in a speech this morning. The United States moved warships near Libya. U.S. officials have repeatedly said all options are on the table with regard to Libya but have been careful to avoid saber-rattling. "We are, the United States, preparing for contingencies by moving some assets into the region, primarily focused on the potential humanitarian contingencies that are out there," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "But as I have said and others have said, our U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday, we obviously aren't taking any options off the table." Referring to Libya's colonizer in the first half of the 20th century, Gadhafi said, "We will not accept an intervention like that of the Italians that lasted decades." "We will not accept a similar American intervention," Gadhafi said. "This will lead to a bloody war, and thousands of Libyans will die if America and NATO enter Libya." The United States is working with NATO to seek an international response to the violence in Libya.


content.usatoday.com...

Well that just about says it all. You know what I am finding funny? How all of these world leaders are telling Gaddafi to leave. Their message to him is just leave.

Where in the world is he supposed to go? It's not like he can file the paperwork and retire from being a dictator and spend the rest of his days on the beach. Not only him but the likes of Kim Jong from North Korea and similar types.

There is nowhere for these people to go and hide anymore. They are supposed to end up in prison or die or both. Just like Saddam. I wonder if they were told all this before they took the job?
edit on 2-3-2011 by jackflap because: Grammar



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
He is only talking tough because he knows that if ever US intervene, his end will be over within minutes as what Reagan had almost achieved within seconds.

He had been asked to leave, and rest assured that there are still nations willing to take him. Chavez, Chad and perhaps Russia, in lieu of the military contracts he had given them, may quietly hide him in the Siberian snows.

With him gone, the rebellion and freedom will have won, and it will be up to the new constitutionally elected gov to hunt him down.

At this stage of the game, pragmatically speaking, with the oilfields intact, UN and the rest of te oil hungry world will quietly let him and his family go to hide elswhere.

But if those oilfieds are destroyed, it wont be just the new Libyan gov after him. Every nation and humanity facing high oil prices will want his head!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR
 



OR

It could just be the fact Gaddafi is killing his own people & hiring mercenaries to kill his own people? if your going to promote democracy & freedom you also need to support it, ben ali & mubarack did not do that should we have stepped in there?


No shortage of other countries and rogue dictators that have and are doing far worse than Gaddafi..
But the US hasn't stepped in...
Don't get me wrong, I hope the US helps those poor people..
I just question their motives given the atrocities they have and do ignore...



I completely disagree

And who would that be exactly ?

This is very very different to all other uprisings in the region surely everybody can see this no?

I think alot of people in this thread don't even know how this Libya crisis has unfolded/played out so far and have only just turn on there news channel to see the USS Enterprise nears Libya, i can see how easy it is to make that connection after the tits up how not to remove a dictator Iraq model,

Have people completely forgetting about Tunisia & Egypt ?

In Egypt & Tunisia Mubarack & Ben Ali both never resulted in violence to "stay" in power and neither did they hire foreign mercenaries to come over and carry out the shootings of its own people, the people want democracy sorry but that is not it!, every day on the news hundreds died from this ordered massacring of the peaceful protester wanting freedom & democracy LOL but yeah its the oil, maybe it was the oil that turned the Libyan leader into Hitler and commit genocide?

He could have killed 90% of his people and the west intervened would have got blamed for wanting the oil no matter what happens the west will get acuesed of wanting the oil

Let just throw another scenario in the works which i don't think most of you have really thought through because you're only thinking with your Iraq model caps on....

Now should the SHTF in Saudi Arabia....

What do you think is going to happen to the "Entire World" if civil war is still going on in Libya ?

Not forgetting the world is not out of recession ?

Say what you will but this is of great concern to all and how this all play out in that region of the world it could well decide the future of the world

you can laugh or say what you like but if Saudi goes the same way as Libya you're all in the ****

What we are seeing now is exactly what i said in my last post that would happen, should the west seek to intervene with military assets it will only go in the favour of other regional dictators already splurting this entire uprising is a western conspiracy, and hey presto Gaddafi just addressed the nation to unite against a foreign invasion LOL makes you laugh how these dictators work, it will just confuse the people in uprising who do they listen to? the dictator on his last legs (but still a Libyan) or foreign governments threatening to use military action against Gaddafi to help the people ?

Yeah i think its obvious we need to stay the hell out of this entire thing in any region and let them sort out there own business for once, but i will keep drilling it into your heads its not the oil nore the oil rich countrys the west/us wants to own and control but much rather to ensure its security
(i'm talking about Libya here not! Iraq),
Now still the security of another country is not our right or business either i get that, but the worlds economy is driven by this stuff as i said a Libya scenario in Saudi Arabia would put the world on its knees in fact the world is already on its knees it would put it flat out on its arse KO'ed


Now is the time for the middle east to take its freedom and have a "real democracy" to get rid of all its dictators, i think they deserve it and i hope they get it, the world would be a better/safer place and maybe just maybe we could all start reading from the same page for once



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Just FYI on this thread, the Enterprise is NOT "headed for Libya" at this time. The Pentagon moved the Kearsarge back through the Suez to the Meditteranean. The Enterprise, however, is positioned in the Red Sea. That means that the title of this thread is simply not yet true.

I think the reason is that CNO Roughhead just came out with a policy of 1.7 carriers in the Arabian Gulf, something that has been true for the last year. This means there will be two carriers in the Gulf for nine months a year. The Enterprise just went through the Suez southbound a couple of weeks ago. They obviously were not excited about turning it back around as this would also affect the Arabian Gulf mission.

So what they have done is put the Enterprise in the middle so it could get to an Iraqnian hotspot fast if it had to. Now, The Reagan Strike Group is just about ready to deploy. It l;iely will in a few days. the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group is alsready in hawaii and headed to the 5th Fleet AOR. Those two groups will act as replacements for the Kearsarge and the Enterprisem so the Pentagon wants to get them at least 'almnost' in place before moving the Enterprise, but it can right away if it has to.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 



It can still operate from there should the no fly zone be enforced on Libya, i don't think Aircraft Carriers need to be anchored of shore of Libya to strike it, so in essence is in range

The only problem would be if Egypt would not grant it permission to fly over its air space i can't see that happening, in which case it would need to get out into the med



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BRITWARRIOR
reply to post by schuyler
 


It can still operate from there should the no fly zone be enforced on Libya, i don't think Aircraft Carriers need to be anchored of shore of Libya to strike it, so in essence is in range


I just got out an atlas and measured the distance from the Red Sea to Triploi. I don't know if any country claims ownership here. Let's just assume not for the sake of argument. If you position the Enteprise in the middle of the Red Sea off the coast of Luxor, the distance to Triploi, at least (as the crow flies over Egyptian territory) is between 1250-1500 miles.

The range of an F/A-18 Super Hornet is 1275 miles. the so-called "combat radius" is about 400 miles. So IF you were to commence combat operations over Libya, i.e.: Over Tripoli, you have one huge problem in refueling your fighters. In order to do an effective job of staying over the target area for any length of time at all, you would have to have a series of tankers positioned enroute for the fighters to do in-flight refueling, probably several times in the course of a mission. You might be able to get to the eastern oil fields a little easier.

So I would say calling the Enterprise within range is kind of pushing the envelope here. They need another carrier in there a whole lot closer. The GHW Bush is ready to deploy, but will take severl days to get there even if they start immediately.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


There is talk of using the RAF for refuelling mid mission, if they ever decided it was a mission.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Just FYI the topic of this thread, the Enterprise remains in the Red Sea and has not headed for Libya. Further, there are no carriers currently heaeed for the Med. There had been speculation that the GHW Bush would be sent. Although it is basically ready to deploy, it remains at Norfolk.

Gates, our SecDef, has said in no uncertain terms that we cannot construct a no-fly zone withjout taking out the aerial defenses of Libya first, which means attacking the country itself. He said on March 2:


Let's just call a spade a spade--a no fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That's how you do a no fly zone."

(Quote is from paper edition of Navy Times, 3/14/11. p.10)

He also said it would take a lot more than one carrier to do the job. So unless the Bush heads on over there, it doesn't look to me like we're about to create a no fly zone--unless someone else wants to do it.





new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join