USS Enterprise part of US naval exercise in Persian Gulf- something we missed

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Agreed wabbit, but if you were commander and knowing an attack was coming by Israel, and we couldn't act like we approved, what better way to limit collateral damage, yet also rally the people behind a war we all know is coming. Old ship due for decommission, put it in harms way and I know it looks bad, but such is life.




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


That's the new info I was wondering about. I think the theory goes something like: "She's being decommissioned anyway, so what better target for a false flag strike to give the U.S./Israel a "reason" to do X"

X being hit Iran I assume. And yes. I like this theory. Let's see what happens.

edit on 9/23/2012 by this_is_who_we_are because: typos


wouldn't it make more 'sense' as a conspiracy theory if the US was to take a carrier that is about to be decommissioned ...put it in harm's way....and then have harm come at it as an inside job making it look like it is iran doing the harm?

just saying....



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Malakyzek
 


That's the theory that's been put forth for months now. Ever since Enterprise got to the area.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Christ on a Crutch!
Any freakin idiot KNOWS better than do the thingds the allies are doing with their ships of the line.....
Just ONE of the new british destroyers is worth a billion dollars......
The amount of lives and money they have hanging its ass out in the persian gulf to get shot at by fanatical Iranis is astounding!
If I were Iran, the temptation, by now, would almost be too great to resist taking a shot at blowing the whole shebang out of the gulf......
massive missiles and fast boats all at once with submarines included in the attacks.....
But ALL at once.......deadly............



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Malakyzek
 


Um, unless my post was convoluted in some way, I thought what you said in your post was the same thing I said in my post. So... I agree 100% with your post.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
the u.s. is sacrificing the brave men and women serving on the u.s.s enterprise, leaving it a sitting duck and tempting target for iranian anti-ship missiles, if israel decides to go ahead with an air assault.

once the american public see the u.s.s. enterprise on cnn rumbling back to port with plumes of black smoke billowing out from the flight deck and command tower, its go time.

90% public approval for a ground invasion and acquisition of the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world.

i say 90%, because it excludes the 1% backing this sacrifice of a pawn, and the 9% that can see thru this disgusting disregard of the lives of the men under their command.

edit on 23-9-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


And if it was the Stennis, or the Reagan, or the Washington, or any other carrier in the fleet, then nothing would be any different. You'd still have a carrier involved, it would still be vulnerable, and people would still be saying that it's making things worse rather than better.

Just about ANY naval ship in the area could come under attack and be forced to launch an attack on Iran in self defense. In fact in a carrier battle group it's the escorts that would be launching a snap attack on Iran, which is what it would be if they came under fire. It would take time for the carrier to ready an attack. The big difference is that if it's a couple of ships, they're more likely to be overwhelmed, and can launch a smaller attack than all the escorts in a CBG.


No. You might be missing the point here. If this is a setup for a false flag to draw our forces against Iran it could easily be pulled off by Israel in the Gulf. The point is that it is the Prise there NOT the Reagan or Bush carriers. To me that means they know the danger and are not willing to give up their 2 newest carriers. It also tells me the higher up know of the intent if not the actual plans.

The other thing is that a carrier can have birds in the air in minutes even if they have fires on the deck. That thing would be really hard to sink too so it would require something internal like the trade centers. That hull is thick as hell and it is completely compartmentalized above and below the waterline to the hanger bay. I would expect something like the Iowa tragedy where they blew the turrets up. I would expect a pocket nuke in the pet tank to overheat the fuel rods. That scenario would allow an evacuation and cause a quick burial at sea to lessen the environmental impact.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by onecraftydude
The other thing is that a carrier can have birds in the air in minutes even if they have fires on the deck. That thing would be really hard to sink too so it would require something internal like the trade centers.


Not if they want to launch a strike they can't. If they just want to launch the aircraft, it would still take a long time to do. You'd have to get the crews to the planes, start engines, etc. All that takes time. If you want to launch a strike, you're looking at 30 minutes minimum to get the first birds loaded and in the air. The alert fighters are armed, but are ready for the air defense mission, not a strike mission.

As for her being sacrificed, there are other carriers that could be sacrificed that are due to be replaced "soon". The Eisenhower is due to be replaced with the third Ford class. They could sacrifice her without losing their newest ships.

They don't have to sacrifice a carrier though, even if they just damage her. Look at the outrage over the Cole, where we only lost 17 sailors. The Vicksburg, which is part of the group is scheduled to be stricken next year. That would be 400 sailors if she was lost with all hands, but even if she wasn't, that would be enough to set off an incident with Iran right there.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
The Iranians are not insane, nor are they suicidal. They know even firing a popgun at any ship in the Gulf spells their utter and complete annihilation. No one is that stupid. No one is that "fanatical".

ANY attack of any kind in the Gulf will be a false flag. To justify the invasion. Just like Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, the Lusitania, you name it. It's their SOP. Once again the ignorant masses will believe it.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
John Mearsheimer knows his stuff, especially foreign policy-

en.wikipedia.org...

Given he also worked for the Brookings Institute, I actually find his comments on 'vulnerable' carriers in this exercise quite unsettling.


Unquestionably in foreign policy. In military tactics and possibilities--not so much. (He attended West Point and seved as an army officer for five years) The real point I was making (and perhaps I should have been more clear) is that the original post was selectively quoting Mearsheimer and ignoring the opposite point of view by an actual Admiral in the field. The original post is designed to creep you out and does not mention any alternative view, which there is in the very same article. In other words, it's biased.

It also leads you to a false conclusion that somehow we "missed" the fact that the Enterprise was part of the MCM exercise. This then leads, as we have seen, to the idea that the Enterprise will be used as a "false flag." None of this is true. We didn't "miss" anything. Anyone paying attention knows where the Enterprise is and also knows it's nearing the end of its deployment and service life.

So what we have here is a perfectly reasonabloe MCM exercise under the circumstances. Indeed, the military would be remiss if it did NOT plan what to do in case Iran mined the Strait, coupled it with a perfectly straightforward, time-tested deployment transition, and turned it all into a conspiracy.

And one way or another, we do this every six months. We're right on schedule.


Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The U.S.S. Enterprise looks pretty lonely up there in the Gulf for Aircraft Carriers. I thought there was a third in the neighborhood?


USS Eisenhower is in the neighborhood. USS Stennis is headed on over to relieve Enterprise.
edit on 9/23/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


If a false flag is planned, then a former Brookings Institute expert in foreign policy is more likelely be in the know than the admiral who will be on the actual ship!

Of course the admiral is going to be positive and say everything will be OK and the carrier would be a stabilizing factor if Israel strikes and trouble starts.

I've seen the stuff they discuss at Brookings, these guys are in the know and have on a few occasions seemingly planned actual US policy that was implemented, an influential group to say the least.

So when a former Brookings guy who is an expert on Israeli influence on American foreign policy says the carriers are vulnerable during this exercise, then I'm taking note of what he says given Israel's links to false flag events in the past.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I thought the Enterprise was going to be decomissioned? Well one way it doesn't have to be paid to be decommissioned is if it's lost in battle, which could be why it's being sent out there, maybe to give us a reason to join the fight. Our carrier getting hit by mines in the Horumz would definately be an act of war.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
It's a bait, not a false flag ...

And it's not a good bait either, being a nuclear aircraft carrier ... which would do more harm to the strait if sunk, than one can imagine. It's not likely that the Iranians, will seek such an opportunity.

The aircraft carrier is meant to strike "fear" into the Iranians. A huge vessel of this sort, is right under their noses, where they can see it with their own eyes. And not only is it a huge vessel, it's an obsolete huge vessel. If they'd be stupid enough to attack it, then it's "collateral damage".

So, the carrier is put there ... as a win-win scenario.

It's meant to put some "fear" into their god-fearing souls.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Israel should had attacked Iran long time ago.

They have tried many times by fear mongering.

Now they are kicking on a wall.

There is no fear , there is awareness.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by penninja
z, and CVN-80 (no name as of yet) enters service in 2025 and replaces Eisenhower.

It will be the USS Barrack Hussein Obama.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

They don't have to sacrifice a carrier though, even if they just damage her. Look at the outrage over the Cole, where we only lost 17 sailors. The Vicksburg, which is part of the group is scheduled to be stricken next year. That would be 400 sailors if she was lost with all hands, but even if she wasn't, that would be enough to set off an incident with Iran right there.


I think this leaves out an essential component of "The Big Lie". It has to be big. Big enough to defy logic. Then it has to be burned into the eyes of all patriots so they have no choice but to back anything you tell them is a reasonable response.

Anyone who sees through it will be given a derogatory name... Or condemned and rounded up in the name of national security. 40 years from now, there will be conclusive evidence aired that Israel actually sunk it with disguised aircraft that went completely un-challenged, and it won't change the smoking crater-ness of Iran, or have any ill effects on relations with Israel.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by CrikeyMagnet
 


The loss of 400+ sailors, and a cruiser that size would be plenty big enough to drag us into a shooting war with Iran though. The loss of 17 sailors on the Cole had people calling for war, and energized people towards a conflict. So how much more would the loss of 400?



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
So when a former Brookings guy who is an expert on Israeli influence on American foreign policy says the carriers are vulnerable during this exercise, then I'm taking note of what he says given Israel's links to false flag events in the past.


He could have the best recipe for clam spaghetti, too, but that doesn't mean he knows anything at all about the defensive characteristics of aircraft carriers. To him, as a foreign policy analyst, a carrier is nothing more than a pawn on a chess board to be moved around in theoretical discussions. Dollars to donuts he has never been on a carrier. Believe what you want, of course, including this completely silly idea of a false flag involving the Enterprise.

1. The opening post is biased. Why? Because it quotes an article out of context without even admitting there is an opposite point of view. Read the ENTIRE article and you come away with a much different idea of what the issues are. And it's PBS, not exactly a paragon of "objective" news reporting. It's as far left as Fox is right. We did not "miss" the fact that the Enterprise is there. We've known about it since March 11, when it arrived.

2. Aircraft carriers are not lone sitting ducks. They have fast attack submarines beneath them, a squadron of Aegis Class destroyers and cruisers surrounding them, and the most sophisticated defense system ever devised over the entire Strike Group of 10-12 ships. They never sail alone. Anyone who thinks a swarm of rubber dinghies with suicide bombers aboard can harm a carrier is not thinking straight. It's like thinking you and your Glock 19 are a match for the SWAT team. It's a fantasy.

3. The exercises in the Gulf are perfectly normal and reasonable given the threat Iran has expressly made about closing the Strait. The US has doubled its mine sweeping presence, along with 30 other countries, and deployed the USS Ponce as a forward deployed staging base for MCM activities. (Want a false flag? The Ponce is an old boat, too, which has been refurbished for this operation and is not a nuke. Go sink it and take out MCM capabilities along with it.)

4. We will never "invade" Iran with ground troops. It's a mountainous country worse than Afghanistan, not a jaunt across a flat desert like Iraq. We can do a shock and awe air campaign, but trops on the ground are unlikely. They aren't even available to use. It takes a logistical "build-up" and there isn't one.

5. The Enterprise being in the area is perfectly normal in every respect. Believe it or not, the US is stretched thin on carriers. 3 of 11 aren't even deployable. The Lincoln, for example, will be laid up and torn apart for about four years. 4 are deployed. 4 are in home port. You can't deploy a carrier without months of training. They do COMPUTEX and air qualifications before they even think of deploying. The next ship out of the shipyard won't be ready until 2015. That means we'll be down to 10 carriers very shortly and stay that way for at least three years,.

6. Sinking the Enterprise in the Gulf is about the most ludicrous, stupidest, most insane idea ever hatched up. It has eight nuclear reactors. Do you honestly think that the US would do this to "save money"????? It would effectively "nuke" the entire Gulf, close the Strait indefinitely, be an environmental nightmare that would make the Gulf Oil Spill and Exxon Valdez look like a two gallon oil spill at a marina, and put a whole new definition on the word "recession." It would take 50 years for the entire world to recover from something like that. A wuss like Obama would never agree to that. It took him two years to take out Osama. Not that someone else couldn't start it, but it won't come from the US.

7. Here's what's going to happen. The MCM exercise will be over this Thursday. The Stennis will arrive on station within a week or two. The Enterpise will then leave the area, sail through the Suez, make a pit stop or two in Italy or Spain, then sail to Norfolk where it will be ultimately decommissioned with great pomp and ceremony.

I know that's not as exciting as the crapola put forth as gospel truth and penetrating analysis on ATS, but that's what is going to happen.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I'd say not enough. You can't get carte blanche in exchange for 400. If there were a false flag operation intended to draw the US into a prolonged and not overly scrutinized war, they'd be looking for a naval version of 9/11... Like some kind of Pearl Harbour, only happening at... No, wait. Pearl Harbour.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CrikeyMagnet
 


If "Iran" were to sink one of our ships, regardless of the size, the outrage would be huge. The US Navy hasn't lost a ship in so long that there's almost a "We're the US Navy, you can't hurt us" mentality that has developed in the US. If any of our ships would be sunk, then the outcry for immediate retaliation would be intense. Not to mention that the immediate retaliation by the other ships in the area, would be enough to start something. There is no way that the other ships in the area would NOT retaliate, and once that happened, their fight would be underway.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
LOL!!!! False flag Shmalse flag. I see this ALL the time on here and i have YET to see any so-called "false flag" come true that has been posted here. Nothing will happene this time either. Good grief kids step back from the crack pipe or video ganmes (not sure which is worse anyway).






top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join