Iranian Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf of Mexico

reply to post by DragonTattooz


*sigh*


READ

reply to post by theRhenn
well then this might be closer to fact not fiction www.abovetopsecret.com... but then how many think we are the only county to invade an other has not Mexico the Persian's now Iran.

Now before anyone get's carried away, this is a scenario topic. It is for discussion only.


How hard is this???

this was only mentioned in the third post. it did not allude to include the previous two posts.

was only the third post to be taken as a scenario? where the previous 2 posts truth?

like i said earlier , you way of posting it made no sense becuase it was all spit up.

you could have easily stated at the outset the whole story was fake.

reply to post by lacrimaererum


That was the point.. Reading all of the information before responding is also the point. Had this been done, there would be no confusion. Simply reading the title or a few small bits of the OP is counter productive to the OP.

If you dont understand the concept behind the OP, please read, ask or refrain from responding alltogether..

For those of you that took interest in the OP, and took the time to read and respond - A star from you to me.

For those that did not. What can I say? This is a common trait on ATS.

The OP was to make one think about double standards, as a few of you pointed out. It was done in a manner to have someone "think" that the possibility could happen, and happen without our knowledge untill it was already in action and place. It was nessissary, as the original news clip, to show the people how things are very one sided. It was a "shock treatment" with a purpose. Very much like those civilians had when they found out the US was in their waters... It gives the reader the insight as to what those people are feeling.

I would so much like to prove a point here about ATS and their bad habits of not reading anything about a post before going all out and refuting something they didnt read in the first place, but I will refrain. Sadly, I ended up spending all of my time responding to these induviduals than responding to the wonderful members that actually took time to read and respond based upon what THEY understood. At least a majority of the posters "Got It". That shows just what we deal with here in ATS, but again, it was not for this purpose, so responding anymore to these induviduals, as always, is pointless. Why I do so, is beyond me.

Again, thank you all for your contributions, those that have. You alone have made this thread worth it above all, and had it not been for you folx, I think I would have just lost total faith in this forum and refrained from posting any more articles.


I think we can see how double standards can be, after reading this. Unfortunatly, it isnt just in War, but in every single thing we do and speak about today.

Again, my thanks!

If we gave them a carrier, all ready to go, it would take them YEARS, to figure out how to operate it.

They are intent on destroying a neighbor.

They deserve what they get.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by theRhenn

 

The gulf of Mexico is not a major shipping lane, the strait of Hormuz is, the two can't be compared.

Actually, I think they just were.

Originally posted by kawika
If we gave them a carrier, all ready to go, it would take them YEARS, to figure out how to operate it.

They are intent on destroying a neighbor.

They deserve what they get.

I hardly doubt it. If Americans can run a carrier anyone can. To days Americans are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They are among the dullest.

reply to post by spy66


Canada used to have a carrier called the HMCS Bonaventure, I don't know how easy it would be to train another to operate but we have a window of time I think. That window closes quickly, the experiences that come from working alongside those who did work on the carrier will only get farther, rather than closer. But Canada doesn't need Carriers, we have the American ones on our side most of the time. Americas dependance on the Canadian Navy isn't real, but we support them because America depends on Canada a lot more than just naval force. Our AIRCOM might be able to operate on American naval decks in an emergency situation, but would SEACOM be the place to train pilots for naval operations in joint force with the Americans, or should AIRCOM have that? Who knows, we don't even have a carrier anymore! XD

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by theRhenn

 

There is a significant difference between the gulf of Mexico and the strait of Hormuz.

The gulf of Mexico is not a major shipping lane, the strait of Hormuz is, the two can't be compared.

Yeah... because if the U.S. was located near the strait of Hormuz Americans would be absolutely fine with Iranian naval ships in the area.. because it's an important trade route and all..

I don't think so.

reply to post by Sachyriel


That carrier is on the bottom of the ocean. It has been there since 1971.

I used to live in Canada from 1978 to 1984. I didn't know Canada ever had a air craft carrier. But i was only teen back then.

reply to post by spy66


Activity on a carrier deck is very complicated. There are so many people, planes, equipment.

If all our carriers were wiped out we would have to call back retired Sailors to teach the new guys how to do it.

There was a video series on it, history channel maybe. Not as easy as you think.

Notice, how few countries have them, and fewer have the really big ones. Russia has one big flat top for fixed wing. Most other countries have only helo carriers (or vert takeoff and landing planes).

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
OP before you run around calling people damn idiots what the hell gives you the right to post a fake headline and a fake story in breaking alternative news.

Did YOU read the actual link?? He didn't post a fake headline. It's the actual headline for the story he found!

And as for him calling people "idiots", well if the shoe fits, just slide that bad-boy on.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
you show yourself to be as foolish and deceitful as the orignal author of the story. Your three opening posts do not make it clear that the whole story is fabricated.

No, he doesn't, but you look the fool for not doing a bit of reading prior to posting here.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
Your 3 opening posts do not make sense. Its only when you go to the origianl article you realise that the whole thing is a lie. If someone hasn't time to check the full article the will make a fool of themselves and you get to call them a damn idiot??? Great work.

So, the person doesn't have time to read the actual linked story, but plenty of time to write a BS post? Give me a break.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
I expected this on other sites. Maybe this is the norm for ATS now.

edit on 31-1-2012 by lacrimaererum because: (no reason given)

Kinda like I expect ass-hats to fly off the handle when they get caught not doing any research prior to running their suck.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
you could have easily stated at the outset the whole story was fake.

Just as you could have easily have read the linked story from his FIRST post.

Originally posted by spy66
I hardly doubt it. If Americans can run a carrier anyone can. To days Americans are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They are among the dullest.

Right. Americans are so dumb. Anyone could run a carrier.

I bet even a caveman could do it.

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by spy66
I hardly doubt it. If Americans can run a carrier anyone can. To days Americans are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They are among the dullest.

Right. Americans are so dumb. Anyone could run a carrier.

I bet even a caveman could do it.

edit on 31-1-2012 by signal2noise because: (no reason given)

Do i have to say more? Lol

And You wouldn't have lasted a week as a caveman.

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by spy66

 

Activity on a carrier deck is very complicated. There are so many people, planes, equipment.

If all our carriers were wiped out we would have to call back retired Sailors to teach the new guys how to do it.

There was a video series on it, history channel maybe. Not as easy as you think.

Notice, how few countries have them, and fewer have the really big ones. Russia has one big flat top for fixed wing. Most other countries have only helo carriers.

edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

Nothing is ever any more complicated than we make it.

If it was to difficult to handle a carrier it wouldn't work well in action. These type off tools are always Made to be as easy as possible to handle. To prevent human errors as much as possible.

reply to post by spy66


Nuclear engines are one thing, nuclear engines protected by thousand-pound pieces of hardware bristling with weapons are another. Having to maneuver around the world, in tandem with a battle-group, is entirely different.

Carriers don't have propeller-spinning men anymore, they have loads of bigger problems. This isn't red-wire blue-wire diagram of simplicity here, this is life-threatening machinery with the intent to use it.

Calling it simple just underlines our collective ignorance of how these floating cities work.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by spy66

 

Activity on a carrier deck is very complicated. There are so many people, planes, equipment.

If all our carriers were wiped out we would have to call back retired Sailors to teach the new guys how to do it.

There was a video series on it, history channel maybe. Not as easy as you think.

Notice, how few countries have them, and fewer have the really big ones. Russia has one big flat top for fixed wing. Most other countries have only helo carriers.

edit on 31-1-2012 by kawika because: corectolated spel'n err

Nothing is ever any more complicated than we make it.

If it was to difficult to handle a carrier it wouldn't work well in action. These type off tools are always Made to be as easy as possible to handle. To prevent human errors as much as possible.

I dunno spy. Have you ever seen our "enginuity" when it comes to millitary craft? Ever hear the story about new privates in the field being told.. "Private.. Go get me the keys to that Humvee!" A few minutes later.. Private returns... Sir, I cannot find the keys. When I asked the First Seargent, he just laghed at me.. I feel like I am being made an ass out of, sir!". The Officer looks at the new recruit and says "Indeed you are private, indeed you are!" and walks away laughing at the new private as well.

There are no keys in a millitary humvee. But I would LOVE to see a civilian start one. That's just a "car". Imagine what the big stuff is like.

From my experiance, most if not all craft in the millitary, and most if not all bigger arms (other than rifles and machine guns.. and even some of them are pretty complicated), missiles, etc, takes a WELL trained man to use, and most often, quite a few troops to do so at the same time.

It's not as simple as one would think. Everything is code and symbol. I seriously doubt anyone from a 3rd world country, no matter how much money and oil they have, could fly a low rate chopper that belongs to our millitary without proper training. It's not like a jumbo jet that you can get directions for by playing a microsoft simulator.

The millitary has things in place for this specific reason. This is also why I feel that the drone Iran captured is either not a threat to our security because they wont figure it out, and if they do, something tells me that we put it there on purpose.

I'm sure a few if not all millitary personel and former millitary like myself will agree.