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.
Originally posted by Trajan
Anyway, Turkey and Israel are probably bricking it. Assad knows he is on the way out and he already announced his intention to burn the world down before he leaves Syria.
Originally posted by Curio
I actually find it very strange that the US has only one carrier in the M.E. right now. Very strange. Surely you would want one in the Med right now to pressure Syria and deal with any potential escalations? I understand another one is on the way to replace Ike, but that still leaves a window where Syria will be thinking the US/NATO has no teeth. Maybe they're trying to lure Assad into using the chemical weapons?edit on 7-12-2012 by Curio because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Trajan
reply to post by schuyler
And a couple Russian Destroyers?
Black Sea Fleet flagship missile cruiser Moskva has already set a course for Sevastopol and is expected to arrive there next week. Destroyer Smetlivy is performing assigned tasks near the Crete Island, landing ships Novocherkassk and Saratov along with two auxiliary vessels are gearing up for passing Bosporus and Dardanelles straits with the view to return to home bases by the year end",
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Curio
The problem is that our operational tempo has resulted in pushing maintenance back on the ships. This results in a situation where when they do go in, they have to stay longer to get more caught up, or they all end up having to go in at the same time. They've been doing this since before 9/11, but with Iraq and Afghanistan, it's caught up to them, and now we're stuck where we only have one carrier in the region.
Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
Any Americans in Syria would have left already if they were going to..
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.
Originally posted by babybunnies
Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by Bers81
Any Americans in Syria would have left already if they were going to..
Seriously? Average American in Syria will probably wait until the bombs are falling and then complain that the US Gov't didn't get them out quickly enough.
It's the same every time there's one of these international crises, people will stay until it's too late to leave and them complain that they weren't assisted.
Originally posted by Curio
I actually find it very strange that the US has only one carrier in the M.E. right now. Very strange. Surely you would want one in the Med right now to pressure Syria and deal with any potential escalations? I understand another one is on the way to replace Ike, but that still leaves a window where Syria will be thinking the US/NATO has no teeth. Maybe they're trying to lure Assad into using the chemical weapons?edit on 7-12-2012 by Curio because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by aarys
reply to post by Krono
Then you will have crazy Alqueda members to fight in Syria with a sh-tload of more weapons in the future. You dont want these scumbag rebels controlling chemical weapons and Nuclear weapons.