Syrian response - USS San Antonio docks in Haifa, Israel

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Syrian response - USS San Antonio docks in Haifa, Israel


www.reuters.com

Reuters is reporting that the USS San Antonio has just docked in the port city of Haifa, Israel. The video shows some good video of the ship, and interviews two different views on the Syrian subject, of people in Israel. One gentleman, does not like the increased military presence.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.ynetnews.com
on.aol.com
edit on 5-9-2013 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Youtube clip:


It is interesting to note, that the USS San Anotonio is an amphibious transport, capable of delivering up to 800 marines onshore, by way of landing craft, and helicopters.

No boots on the ground?

www.reuters.com

edit on 5-9-2013 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
They already have thousands of troops in Jordan and Turkey if they wanted to put boots on the ground. They were moved there a few months ago.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skorpy
They already have thousands of troops in Jordan and Turkey if they wanted to put boots on the ground. They were moved there a few months ago.


I guess my point was that it's odd to send a ship used to support an invasion, by delivering Marines, to an operation where you have already said that you don't want boots on the ground. I understand that we do have soldiers, and military personnel around the globe, and specifically in that region close to Syria.

I'm looking at the bigger picture here. Why is this specific ship there? What could it be used for, if it's not going to be used for it's main purpose, Marine landings?
edit on 5-9-2013 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
That ship looks like it's seen it days... I've seen better looking ships in ship graveyards lol...



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by imitator
That ship looks like it's seen it days... I've seen better looking ships in ship graveyards lol...


It entered service on July 12th, 2003, according to Wikipedia. So, it's 10 years old, which isn't ancient when it comes to Naval vessels. But, it has been around a decade.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Catacomb
No boots on the ground?

That was my thought too. Why a transport ship if there aren't any 'boots on the ground'??



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Catacomb
 


Correction, no boots on the ground in Syria, and even then that is only in connection to the current plan of action, in which Congress is to approve. The President knows damn well if they attack, they will be attacked, in turn destroying the plan Congress agreed on and starting something new in which the President won't need Congressional approval on. It's all their plan, because they know Congress won't approve of another war, so they paint it as something "limited" (that's guaranteed to become something big) so they can go fourth with what they actually plan with the entire U.S. Congress being responsible instead of just the President and his administration being held accountable.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
If I hear that term "boots on the ground" again, im going to scream.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Catacomb
No boots on the ground?

That was my thought too. Why a transport ship if there aren't any 'boots on the ground'??


It has also been plagued with numerous issues.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sharingan
If I hear that term "boots on the ground" again, im going to scream.


I apologize! I am kinda tired of hearing, and saying it, as well. I will try to use a different term.




The President knows damn well if they attack, they will be attacked, in turn destroying the plan Congress agreed on and starting something new in which the President won't need Congressional approval on. It's all their plan


That is the scary thing, and it is what I am afraid will happen. If we do go ahead with a limited attack, Russia, and maybe even Iran will respond. What then? I think that for that eventuality is the real reason that the ship is there. They know it will escalate, and obviously do not care.
edit on 5-9-2013 by Catacomb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Catacomb
 


You're instincts are real good. Yeah, the San Antonio is there in support of this mission, if it goes off. We have, all together, 6 Navy vessels in that immediate area, as of a Naval status update a few days ago. The S.A. and 5 Burke class Destroyers. Several of them are pushing the 20+ year range of their service life, which I found odd when they are the "front line" and constitute all Obama deems necessary. There are a few Carriers in the world, not in port or offline right now. Only a few of the 10 CVBG's. The nearest one is the Nimitz down around the Red Sea approach to the Suez and/or Arabian Sea.

I've never seen shooting started over there for anything with LESS than 2 full carrier battle groups on station and fully engaged for the action. The carriers and all their support vessels. Obama doesn't figure little old Syria even rates one of them.

I'd never have considered the San Antonio a Capital ship...but in that spot, at this moment and for the coming fight? It's the closest we have to one for a weeks travel time in any direction. (Estimate I saw last night for transit to to get the Nimitz up into the Med with all her escorts)

*BTW The San Antonio is there for support and defense of forces. If we have pilots eject over Syria, we DO NOT just write them off...and Obama better pack his crap and hit the door ahead of the raging mob of citizens if he changes that now. That's it's primary purpose, I believe. You're right to say it doesn't carry enough people to do much else.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Maybe there won't be boots on the ground in Syria. But when the fighting starts (and it will) it will threaten to spill over into Israel.

My guess is that the boots on the ground will be there to defend Israel.

If this is the case, then we can all assume they are gearing up for a big one.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Catacomb
 


Think it's a given they will need a ground force to secure weapon sites, airstrikes can limit and degrade but not secure, Once Israel is attacked, the gloves come off and it gets messy all around.
edit on 5-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
reply to post by Catacomb
 

I've never seen shooting started over there for anything with LESS than 2 full carrier battle groups on station and fully engaged for the action. The carriers and all their support vessels. Obama doesn't figure little old Syria even rates one of them.

*BTW The San Antonio is there for support and defense of forces. If we have pilots eject over Syria, we DO NOT just write them off...and Obama better pack his crap and hit the door ahead of the raging mob of citizens if he changes that now. That's it's primary purpose, I believe. You're right to say it doesn't carry enough people to do much else.


I am also surprised that we didn't move a carrier group in there sooner. I think it shows how inept Obama is from a military perspective. He isn't doing the proper thing, and I believe doesn't listen to his military advisors.

And yes, I do support us getting our downed pilots back. I have huge respect for our veterans, but I just do not support this action. But, yes, if we do have pilots, and they got shot down, I would fully support anything, and EVERYTHING, to get that young serviceman back home. I am glad you pointed out that this vessel could support such an action. I had not thought of that, so thank you!



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I believe this is in position to provide rescue support if a plane goes down. The Pave Lows on the back deck and the Marines would move in and secure any downed airmen. The Pave Lows are refuelable by air refueler to give them range. The USS Kearsarge was used to launch Osprey's when the F-15 went down in Libya.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   
That ship could also help evacuate American citizens out of Israel in case Iran decides to commit suicide and attacks?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Catacomb

Originally posted by Skorpy
They already have thousands of troops in Jordan and Turkey if they wanted to put boots on the ground. They were moved there a few months ago.


I guess my point was that it's odd to send a ship used to support an invasion, by delivering Marines, to an operation where you have already said that you don't want boots on the ground.


I really doubt they would disclose actual strategy and logistics to the world on how to invade. Heck they aren't even disclosing the real motives or evidence to back this war.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





Why a transport ship if there aren't any 'boots on the ground'??


Well technically there boots on a boat... Right?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trubeeleever
Maybe there won't be boots on the ground in Syria. But when the fighting starts (and it will) it will threaten to spill over into Israel.

My guess is that the boots on the ground will be there to defend Israel.

If this is the case, then we can all assume they are gearing up for a big one.



Maybe you missed it but the fighting has been going on for 2 years and it spills over the border on a regular basis.





top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join