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.

 

USS Vinson leaves the Gulf, heads to the 7th fleet

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Hey, for all you, "We have three carriers in the Gulf!" people, the USS Carl Vinson just left the Gulf and is in the Indian Ocean. Right now, today, there is only one carrier in the Gulf, the USS Lincoln. the Enterprise is about to head through the Suez to join her. The Vinson will very likely mosey aroiund the 7th Fleet AOR for awhile, make a few pit stops, and head back home to Bremerton. All in all a shorter deployment than usual.

Once again, the "two carrier in the gulf" strategy is being maintained. There is no "build up." The Naval presence in the region is normal in every respect.

Actually, looks like it's already there.
edit on 4/4/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
There is a surprising little amount of chicken little threads on here as of late!!!! Since folks on here are pretty much 100% wrong, and now they are quiet, WWIII will prob kick off. LMAO!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
This is absolutely ridiculous putting these young men in harms way for the bidding of corporations and the protection of Israel. Israel can fight its own damn wars. We will not shed one drop of blood for that country. Gas prices are rising and it is not even summer yet and lo and behold we ship another carrier off to increase prices..who gets the money...corporations. Who gets the short end of the stick? Joe. If they want a real war they had better be prepared for one because Iran + Afghanistan combined as a dual front war is going to drag the USA into a situation where there is no escape for the US troops and at that point US forces will use tactical nuclear weapons. That will open the genie and its not going back in. Everyone will use nukes and in retaliation enemy forces will nuke a US city. Is it worth it?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This is absolutely ridiculous putting these young men in harms way for the bidding of corporations and the protection of Israel. Israel can fight its own damn wars. We will not shed one drop of blood for that country. Gas prices are rising and it is not even summer yet and lo and behold we ship another carrier off to increase prices..who gets the money...corporations. Who gets the short end of the stick? Joe. If they want a real war they had better be prepared for one because Iran + Afghanistan combined as a dual front war is going to drag the USA into a situation where there is no escape for the US troops and at that point US forces will use tactical nuclear weapons. That will open the genie and its not going back in. Everyone will use nukes and in retaliation enemy forces will nuke a US city. Is it worth it?


What does any of that have to do with this thread?

People were afraid that the increased military presence in the Middle East was going to be a threat, and with possible escalations of violence and possibly conflict.

Now the U.S. has shown that they are just keeping their routine presence there, two carriers, not 3 or 4 or 5. Two.

If that presence has any foundation or anything relevant to it, it's another discussion. The matter of fact is, many people including myself, argued that an increase in military presence could spark fears and "jumpy" attitudes, and the U.S. military gave that a rest by showing there isn't an increase in military presence, just usual rotation of vessels.

Seriously, it's time to let go and calm down.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


The carriers are not there to "protect" Israel, which is 1,000 miles away from the Gulf. They are there to protect "shipping," which means oil, which isn't going to Israel. It's going to China, Japan, Europe, India, and a bit to the US. Yeah, we need the oil, but so does the rest of the world, and we're subsidizing protection for them, just as we've subsidized the protection of Europe for the last half century.

Your anti-Semite views are well known, but they are irrelevant to this particular thread.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Stop going on a tangent, all you are doing is writing down what some guy said in a video. The same guy that said we would not be able to take over the city of Baghdad in the Invasion of 2003
. He is a convicted pedophile I hope you know?

Washington Times





Ex. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This is absolutely ridiculous putting these young men in harms way for the bidding of corporations and the protection of Israel. Israel can fight its own damn wars. We will not shed one drop of blood for that country. Gas prices are rising and it is not even summer yet and lo and behold we ship another carrier off to increase prices..who gets the money...corporations. Who gets the short end of the stick? Joe. If they want a real war they had better be prepared for one because Iran + Afghanistan combined as a dual front war is going to drag the USA into a situation where there is no escape for the US troops and at that point US forces will use tactical nuclear weapons. That will open the genie and its not going back in. Everyone will use nukes and in retaliation enemy forces will nuke a US city. Is it worth it?


*yawn*
just another pointless rant of yours I see.
lo and behold you even find the space to bash Israel...not that Israel is even mentioned by the thread starter.
you pretty much say the same stuff in most of your posts. Don't mean to offend you or anything like that, but really you are like a broken record at times.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Too much politics can turn any thread of any subject into a cesspool floater.

Back on topic, sort of, is that Big E is on her last cruise. She's due for stand down in December. This little gulf tour will be the last page in her long history.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Do we even have the money to keep em out there?

Im thinking alot of stalling and fleet movements lately have been from a lack of support.. logisticly.

Just got a letter from a friend on the Big E.. says thier hardly doing anything.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Yes, this is definitely to protect Israel

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just ignorant

here is why:

The only reason Iran would close down the strait of hormuz was if there was a military strike on its soil, right?

Since the whole world has no problem with Iranian nuclear program apart from Israel, there is really no need for military hardware in the gulf.

It is in fact Israel who wants to strike Iran, the US is forced to put carriers in the middle east while Israel can sit in the background and suck on lucifers nipples.

If israel doesnt exist, then the US wouldnt even need to be in the Middle east to deal with enemies that are too strong for Israel. The US wouldnt even need to be dealing with Iran closing the strait because the whole problem wouldn't be there.

Its not an Iran US problem, this is zionist Israel-Iranian problem. and like always the israelites drag the US in the war.


edit on 9/4/2012 by RizeorDie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by RizeorDie
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


[quote[The only reason Iran would close down the strait of hormuz was if there was a military strike on its soil, right?


No. It could do so for any reason whatsoever, including internal strife. It has threatened to do so many times in the past when there was no threat to Iran itself. Their threats against shipping and the US Navy have proven to be mere bluster, of course, but it happens on a regular basis.


Since the whole world has no problem with Iranian nuclear program apart from Israel, there is really no need for military hardware in the gulf.


Not true. The Arab states also have a problem with a nuclear Iran, which upsets the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran is not an Arabic state.Iranians (Aryans) have historically been at odds with all their neighbors. One of the biggest wars in the Middle East was between Iran and Iraq. In addition, many other countries have expressed dismay over Irtanian nukes, including much of the Eurozone, France in particular, and even China and Japan. Japan has sent a fleet of minsweepers to the Gulf. China has suggested it may show up as well. Those are facts you can look up for yourself.


It is in fact Israel who wants to strike Iran, the US is forced to put carriers in the middle east while Israel can sit in the background and suck on lucifers nipples.


The US has had carriers in the gulf for decades, well prior to any Iran/Israel tensions. As for your second sentence, that pretty well sums up your bias. You're just another anti-Semite.


If israel doesnt exist, then the US wouldnt even need to be in the Middle east to deal with enemies that are too strong for Israel. The US wouldnt even need to be dealing with Iran closing the strait because the whole problem wouldn't be there.


You mis-define the problem on several levels. There are no enemies "too strong" for Israel, as it has proven repeatedly over the last sixty years. Oil is the issue, and whether or not Israel exists is almost irrelevant, though it doesn't help. As long as a large percentage of oil is traveling through the Gulf, it is going to need policing, either by the US or someone else with a vested interest. Israel is 1,000 miles away from Iran. It cannot just pop on over and throw a couple of bunker busters at Tehran. Attacking Iran in that manner is at the edge of practicality and needs intense logistical support.

Someone else mentioned they got a letter from a friend who said the Enterprise isn't doing anything. Yup. Guard duty is boring. Hopefully it will stay that way. In any case, we now have two carriers in the Gulf, just like we have had 3/4 of the time for several years now.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
i read your first paragraph and straight away i understood your level of thinking regarding the whole middle east conflict, you see at as politics. I however see it as two forces (both waiting for a messiah, both believe in the return of jesus/isa, and both believe they will be the final winners). there is no point in having any discussion, we cant change each others minds and this subject is too deep if we try and talk about it here it will divert the purpose of your thread, regards

btw Saudi and Qatar (GCC) are US/zionist puppets, of course they will side with israel
edit on 9/4/2012 by RizeorDie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
The tanker wars of the 80's dealt with the notion of disrupting oil shipments in the gulf.

Will a nation there decide to attack another country's shipping? Would the scale of warfare be any different today?

Oil revenue is probably something no country in the mideast desires to lose.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join