posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 04:47 PM
Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL
reply to post by schuyler
Apologies. I read to page three when I went to do some research, obviously I came across the article above and thought I'd share.
But hey does it really matter.
Sorry to be snappy. I'm just a little frustrated that these threads never come to any conclusions. This one has devolved into a kind of cat fight
that's not going anywhere; Besides, you were also on topic!
Someone back a few pages mentioned the Charles de Gaulle could be counted as a third carrier. There may be some truth to that. First, it's France's
only carrier. Sending it there is a bit of a risk. Second, a couple of years ago the US and France conducted one of those joint training missions
where the goal was to get an F/A-18 to land on the De Gaulle. Apparently it's a bit complicated because the tension of the "arresting wires" has to
be set to the specs of the jet. It took them a couple of months to set up everything before a couple of F/A-18s landed to great fanfare. There's
probably a YouTube on it somewhere. But anyway, bottom line is that our jets can land on their carrier, making joint missions technically feasible. Of
course, the French have their own jets, but I think the idea was that this could provide an extra measure of safety in case of an emergency.
A second issue is this idea that the carriers are there simply to harrass Iran. I don't think that's exactly true. The task of the Fifth Fleet is to
guarantee the flow of oil--not just to the US, but around the entire world. Our carriers have been there in a tag team relay race for decades now, but
it is only recently that Iran has been blustery on its own.
And the carriers may be there for a completely different secondary mission, and that is to PROTECT Iran from Israel. It's no secret that the current
administration is not a friend to Israel. The usual leftist rhetoric applies. Indeed, at least one former national security advisor is on record as
saying that if the Israelis strike Iran, we should take the Israeli planes out. This is not speculation on my part, as so many of these posts are.
Brzezinski said that, and you can look it up. If Bush or Reagan were president I wouldn't even bring this up, but given the circumstances I think it
is worth considering.
I believe the Obama administration, and Obama himself, is perceived as weak by Middle Eastern leaders, and that is why we've seen an escalation of
tensions. They don't respect Obama and think he is an amateur. Now for you Obama fans I'm not signing on to that idea because it could be a very big
mistake on their part. Obama may not be very good at playing chess, but he still has the biggest pieces.
I just wanted to point out that this thing has more than a couple of players and that the dynamics going on here may be a lot more complex than we
tend to think.