Aircraft carrier off Syrias coast.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
www.debka.com...

I know its Debka. But if they are there they must really be there. Seems like a very large number of ships ready for action. Funny how fast they got there considering it was only a few days ago the said they were watching chemical weapons being moved. I feel we are very close to Syrias demise like Libya.




posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I't's just for US citizens evacuation if needed. And show how cool they are



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bers81
I't's just for US citizens evacuation if needed. And show how cool they are


Evacuations, Show of Force or quite possibly actual missions (near future probability).

The Middle East is falling part right now and going the route of Somalia...but that's just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Bers81
 


What?? Maybe you are confusing Syria with Gaza? Any Americans in Syria would have left already if they were going to.. Around Gaza we had 2 smaller but still big craft sitting there ready to evacuate people.. Then the ceasefire happened..

No that carrier group with what was it some 70 fighter bombers? That's a blow up Syria Force...

It's not about "how cool we are" either... If they are there they are there to put options on the table.. who knows what happens next? Not even the crew knows if they will attack or not most likely..

If they have decided the rebels can't get to the chemical weapons and also decided Assad must step down... Then you must accept outside forces have to invade...
edit on 12/5/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bers81
 


There is no way that civilians will be evacuated to an aircraft carrier. It is not done.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Well, according to this site:

www.gonavy.jp...

The Eisenhower did indeed enter the Med via the Suez Canal on Dec 1st - putting it almost immediately off the coast of Israel and Syria. However, there are often carriers in the Med (and often pass through the Suez I assume) so I wouldn't read too much into it. It's also a pretty understandable tactic to have a carrier in that region anyway. I wouldn't take it as a sign that anything is about to happen.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


The Royal Navy did when the ash cloud halted all flights from France to Britain.

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 


No that carrier group with what was it some 70 fighter bombers? That's a blow up Syria Force...


No, it's not. It's the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group. It DOES NOT HAVE "70 fighter bombers" to start with. It has a bunch of helicopters and a few harrier jets along with a couple thousand Marines. It's there for evacuation of American citizens from Israel should that conflict get worse. It's "off ths coast of Syria" because the Eastern coast of the med isn't very big. An ARG has about ten ships. If they sail up and down the coast it takes a few hours before they have to turn around again. It's also "off the coast of Lebanon", "off the coast of Cyprus," and "off the coast" of any country over there because of it.

The Iwo Jima is not exactly an "aircraft carrier" in the way we use the term in modern times. It's not a CVN. It's displacement is about 40,000 tons compared to an "aircraft carrier" at 100,000 tons. They just spent about seven months in the Persian Gulf. They were headed home and made it as far as Spain before they were turned around and sent to Israel. What you have is several thousand pissed off Sailors and Marines who are out of Diet Coke and want very much to be back at Norfolk.

So relax and stop with the hyperbole. Nobody is there to "blow up Syria." That's completely absurd.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 


No that carrier group with what was it some 70 fighter bombers? That's a blow up Syria Force...


No, it's not. It's the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group. It DOES NOT HAVE "70 fighter bombers" to start with. It has a bunch of helicopters and a few harrier jets along with a couple thousand Marines. It's there for evacuation of American citizens from Israel should that conflict get worse. It's "off ths coast of Syria" because the Eastern coast of the med isn't very big. An ARG has about ten ships. If they sail up and down the coast it takes a few hours before they have to turn around again. It's also "off the coast of Lebanon", "off the coast of Cyprus," and "off the coast" of any country over there because of it.

The Iwo Jima is not exactly an "aircraft carrier" in the way we use the term in modern times. It's not a CVN. It's displacement is about 40,000 tons compared to an "aircraft carrier" at 100,000 tons. They just spent about seven months in the Persian Gulf. They were headed home and made it as far as Spain before they were turned around and sent to Israel. What you have is several thousand pissed off Sailors and Marines who are out of Diet Coke and want very much to be back at Norfolk.

So relax and stop with the hyperbole. Nobody is there to "blow up Syria." That's completely absurd.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


Well said that man/woman!

S



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Krono
 

The Royal Navy is not the US Navy.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by Krono
 

The Royal Navy is not the US Navy.


I'm well aware of that! Somebody said "there's no way civilians would be evacuated on an aircraft carrier" (on the lines of that)

And I simply put a link showing the Royal Navy doing it when the ash cloud hit Europe.


I just realised that somebody is you, my apolagies for not noticing.
edit on 5-12-2012 by Krono because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 


No that carrier group with what was it some 70 fighter bombers? That's a blow up Syria Force...


No, it's not. It's the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group. It DOES NOT HAVE "70 fighter bombers" to start with. It has a bunch of helicopters and a few harrier jets along with a couple thousand Marines. It's there for evacuation of American citizens from Israel should that conflict get worse. It's "off ths coast of Syria" because the Eastern coast of the med isn't very big. An ARG has about ten ships. If they sail up and down the coast it takes a few hours before they have to turn around again. It's also "off the coast of Lebanon", "off the coast of Cyprus," and "off the coast" of any country over there because of it.

The Iwo Jima is not exactly an "aircraft carrier" in the way we use the term in modern times. It's not a CVN. It's displacement is about 40,000 tons compared to an "aircraft carrier" at 100,000 tons. They just spent about seven months in the Persian Gulf. They were headed home and made it as far as Spain before they were turned around and sent to Israel. What you have is several thousand pissed off Sailors and Marines who are out of Diet Coke and want very much to be back at Norfolk.

So relax and stop with the hyperbole. Nobody is there to "blow up Syria." That's completely absurd.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


The Poster is talking about the Eisenhower, not the Iwo Jima.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by aarys
www.debka.com...

I know its Debka. But if they are there they must really be there. Seems like a very large number of ships ready for action. Funny how fast they got there considering it was only a few days ago the said they were watching chemical weapons being moved. I feel we are very close to Syrias demise like Libya.


Probably getting ready for an intervention against Syria, if they use chemical weapons.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 


No that carrier group with what was it some 70 fighter bombers? That's a blow up Syria Force...


No, it's not. It's the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group. It DOES NOT HAVE "70 fighter bombers" to start with. It has a bunch of helicopters and a few harrier jets along with a couple thousand Marines. It's there for evacuation of American citizens from Israel should that conflict get worse. It's "off ths coast of Syria" because the Eastern coast of the med isn't very big. An ARG has about ten ships. If they sail up and down the coast it takes a few hours before they have to turn around again. It's also "off the coast of Lebanon", "off the coast of Cyprus," and "off the coast" of any country over there because of it.

The Iwo Jima is not exactly an "aircraft carrier" in the way we use the term in modern times. It's not a CVN. It's displacement is about 40,000 tons compared to an "aircraft carrier" at 100,000 tons. They just spent about seven months in the Persian Gulf. They were headed home and made it as far as Spain before they were turned around and sent to Israel. What you have is several thousand pissed off Sailors and Marines who are out of Diet Coke and want very much to be back at Norfolk.

So relax and stop with the hyperbole. Nobody is there to "blow up Syria." That's completely absurd.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


The Poster is talking about the Eisenhower, not the Iwo Jima.


And the Eisenhower is in the Persian Gulf, NOT off the coast of Syria! For the Eisenhower to get off the coast of Syria it would have to go through the Suez Canal. Right now it's about 1,000 miles away from Syria.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by aarys
 


I must admit, I do not have a map handy, but I didn't know Syria had a coast.
Could someone find me a map.
If I am confused I know it will be pointed out real quick.

Oh, Now I see a strip above Lebanon, beside Cyprus.
I guess it ahd just never appeared to be very large before.
Oh well, my bad.
edit on 5-12-2012 by seriousskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 


No that carrier group with what was it some 70 fighter bombers? That's a blow up Syria Force...


No, it's not. It's the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group. It DOES NOT HAVE "70 fighter bombers" to start with. It has a bunch of helicopters and a few harrier jets along with a couple thousand Marines. It's there for evacuation of American citizens from Israel should that conflict get worse. It's "off ths coast of Syria" because the Eastern coast of the med isn't very big. An ARG has about ten ships. If they sail up and down the coast it takes a few hours before they have to turn around again. It's also "off the coast of Lebanon", "off the coast of Cyprus," and "off the coast" of any country over there because of it.

The Iwo Jima is not exactly an "aircraft carrier" in the way we use the term in modern times. It's not a CVN. It's displacement is about 40,000 tons compared to an "aircraft carrier" at 100,000 tons. They just spent about seven months in the Persian Gulf. They were headed home and made it as far as Spain before they were turned around and sent to Israel. What you have is several thousand pissed off Sailors and Marines who are out of Diet Coke and want very much to be back at Norfolk.

So relax and stop with the hyperbole. Nobody is there to "blow up Syria." That's completely absurd.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


The Poster is talking about the Eisenhower, not the Iwo Jima.


And the Eisenhower is in the Persian Gulf, NOT off the coast of Syria! For the Eisenhower to get off the coast of Syria it would have to go through the Suez Canal. Right now it's about 1,000 miles away from Syria.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


It passed through the Suez Canal on the 1st December and into the Med. That's the information I've found anyway. Where are you getting your info from? (not challenging you - just want to make sure where it is
)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about! Ever been stationed on a carrier? I have, and have seen civilians evacuated from many locations.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curio

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
 


No that carrier group with what was it some 70 fighter bombers? That's a blow up Syria Force...


No, it's not. It's the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group. It DOES NOT HAVE "70 fighter bombers" to start with. It has a bunch of helicopters and a few harrier jets along with a couple thousand Marines. It's there for evacuation of American citizens from Israel should that conflict get worse. It's "off ths coast of Syria" because the Eastern coast of the med isn't very big. An ARG has about ten ships. If they sail up and down the coast it takes a few hours before they have to turn around again. It's also "off the coast of Lebanon", "off the coast of Cyprus," and "off the coast" of any country over there because of it.

The Iwo Jima is not exactly an "aircraft carrier" in the way we use the term in modern times. It's not a CVN. It's displacement is about 40,000 tons compared to an "aircraft carrier" at 100,000 tons. They just spent about seven months in the Persian Gulf. They were headed home and made it as far as Spain before they were turned around and sent to Israel. What you have is several thousand pissed off Sailors and Marines who are out of Diet Coke and want very much to be back at Norfolk.

So relax and stop with the hyperbole. Nobody is there to "blow up Syria." That's completely absurd.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


The Poster is talking about the Eisenhower, not the Iwo Jima.


And the Eisenhower is in the Persian Gulf, NOT off the coast of Syria! For the Eisenhower to get off the coast of Syria it would have to go through the Suez Canal. Right now it's about 1,000 miles away from Syria.
edit on 12/5/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


It passed through the Suez Canal on the 1st December and into the Med. That's the information I've found anyway. Where are you getting your info from? (not challenging you - just want to make sure where it is
)


I stand corrected. The Eisenhower is interrupting its scheduled deployment in the Gulf. headed to Norfolk for repairs to its flight deck. Info from stratfor.com. That leaves one carrier in the Gulf. Confirmed by Stratfor.com today.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
If Assad starts lobbing chemicals NATO WILL enter.That is the stated red line for them.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
I stand corrected. The Eisenhower is interrupting its scheduled deployment in the Gulf. headed to Norfolk for repairs to its flight deck. Info from stratfor.com. That leaves one carrier in the Gulf. Confirmed by Stratfor.com today.


On Stratfor's map it shows the Eisenhower in the Med as of today. I'm not seeing where it's saying about it going back to Norfolk
Just says "Under way in the 6th Fleets AOR"





top topics
 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join