Western military fleets are heading to Lebanon & Israel's army is on full alert

Originally posted by stumason
I am dubious about any reports the UK (not England as quoted in the source article) is involved. We currently have no aircraft carriers or even planes to fly off them! At most, we'd have a destroyer or two sat in the Med as part of our presence there anyway.

That said, we do have alot of soldiers and aircraft in Cyprus.

edit on 24/1/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)

We used Cyprus to as an evacuation centre, which I am sure would be used for the same purpose should anything kick off again, if it does I am sure will need to evacuate our civilians again.

WHAT fleets? The CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln is on station in the Persian Gulf where it has been for months. The LND-3 Kearsarge is in nearly the same place where it has been for months. Note that there are ALWAYS one Carrier Strike Group and one Amphibious Ready Group deployed in this area. This has been true for 20 years. Unless either of these move up the Suez Canal they won't be off the coast of Lebanon any time soon.

The CVN-65 USS Enterprise is probably in the Mediterranean by now and could account for this. The only problem is that this is a scheduled deployment and has been for months. It couldn't possibly be in reaction to Lebanon. My guess is it is headed to relieve the Lincoln which is scheduled to go back to its home port in Everett this Spring.

Only the Enterprise qualifies as a hit here. The article stated there were 5,000 marines. Nonsense. There are no other Amphibious Ready Groups anywhere near Lebanon or Europe. All but the Kearsarge are at their home ports or otherwise non-deployable. The Enterprise Carrier Strike Group has ten ships maximum. Maybe some people consider this a "fleet," but the whole purpose of the support ships is to protect the carrier. A Carrier Strike Group is not designed for invasions. basically you have two or three squadrons of F/A aircraft and a few support planes.

So unless you can name some other "fleets" here the article is a gross over-statement. It basically is taking advantage of normal scheduled ship movements and turning this into a mythical "invasion fleet." It would take several more weeks to send any more ships to the area. The only other Strike Group even remotely within striking distance is the USS Carl Vinson, and that's in the South China Sea.

reply to post by schuyler


Well, given the problems last time around and the concerted effort to evacuate civilians I think it would be sensible for Western Governments to have some ships at the ready... All in all what was it 50 - 100K civilians lifted from Lebanon last time round??

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by schuyler

 

Well, given the problems last time around and the concerted effort to evacuate civilians I think it would be sensible for Western Governments to have some ships at the ready... All in all what was it 50 - 100K civilians lifted from Lebanon last time round??

That seems prudent to me, too. The problem is that there aren't any. A Carrier Strike Group is not equipped to evacuate that many people. The Enterprise is the only sizeable group (or "fleet") verified to be in the area. If someone can name these other fleets that are supposed to be going there, that would be great.

reply to post by schuyler


Well, we know what hype is, it took the UK a few days last to to put together a small fleet to evacuate civilians.. and without looking it up I am sure the US took equally as long.. tho I am sure this time around they'll have better plans in place.. and to be honest I would expect to see civilian evacuations first and foremost.

However sending fleets too early sends the wrong signal even if it is only precautionary, and the only ships I know in close proximity is the Royal Navies Cyprus squadron and that is only made up of a couple of patrol vessels..

At the end of the day, we need to somehow remove Iran, Lebanon and Gaza from existance!

Sounds harsh but hyperthetically, if they weren't there, then the Middle East would actually be a very peaceful region.

You could say, well if we remove Israel instead, then that would have the same effect.

Well, not quite.

Why?

Because Iran would still press ahead with it's Nuclear program, it would still be getting technology / dealing with North Korea, would still be financing / breeding terrorists and so on!

So as they say, cut the head off the chicken and deal with the root of the problem, basically Muslims.

Oh, yeah, not to sound harsh but when was the last time a group of Christians / Sunday School Kids blew themselves up in a packed market place to kill others?

Get the drift...!!!

^
^
Wow, what a response LOL.

Should of handed out a grain of salt with your reply.

reply to post by minkey53


wow what an arrogant and uneducated person you are...do some research and you will find what christians did far more worse than what any muslims have done! And your wrong Isreal is the problem in the middle east

Unbelievable.

Stupidity and ignorance abound here just by glimpsing at the responses.

In terms of Iran, no doubt the Muslim nations are more concerned about the potential nuke threat than Israel, even though Israel is rightfully concerned. Remember that century after century, Arab rulers have attempted to conquer the Arab World, all unsuccessful. Iran IS on the warpath now, thanks largely in part to the U.S. overthrow of Saddam in Iraq, which the U.S. set up as a buffer against Iranian/Shiite influence in Iraq (another DUH! in the scheme of U.S. foreign/terror policy).

In terms of Israel, sure they're nuke program has existed for decades but the Muslim World knows not to fear it - unless they attack Israel. The Muslim on Muslim threat is much greater and they ALL know it.

In terms of the Protocols of Zion. That manuscript was written over a century ago largely by the Secret Societies that Bill Cooper spoke about in extreme detail and wrote about in "Behold A Pale Horse". They used the Jews as a convenient and easily saleable cover, which, unfortunately for the Jews in Europe, led to the murder of about 90% of them. Those same Secret Societies which Bill Cooper warned about, are really consolidating their Global Agenda, as we all know.

Put your petty, ignorant, hatreds and prejudices aside for a moment and use your brains - most of you fall right into their trap of divide and conquer. The Secret Societies, the Intelligence services, and geo-politics are simply ravaging global stability - each with their own agendas - and are extremely powerful. THAT is where the biggest concerns should be.

I think it might have something to do with this

Leaving this up to the UN is like going to a drug dealer for your depression.

It's called branch of powers for a reason. You always have to answer to someone
for your actions. Be it the police (in rare cases:lol being watched with their internal police.
Or the president getting voted out if he makes to many people upset, can't pass a thing
without congress. Be it your corporate CE big wig even they who
make very bad choices answer to the investers.

Who watches the UN?
Sure, now they don't have a lot of power, but in time
if you keep letting them make more and more choices
and gain more power. Just be careful of calling on the UN
to make decisions because at the end of the day they do not
have to answer to anyone, which can never be good!

reply to post by TypeSH2001


You certainly are liberal with your use of insults, but then you trot out the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if they were real. This pretty well nullifies what you say. Even a brief bit if research would show you that the Protocol is utterly fake, a plagerized piece of nonsense promoted by anti-Semites to justify their seething emotional hatred of Jews. next you'll be telling us the Holocaust never happened.

How about some on-topic information here? "Western military fleets are heading to Lebanon"

Well?? Where are they? Can anyone furnish some hull numbers here? You can't hide fleets of ships very easily, or are they all wearing their invisibility cloaks? Is there any hard evidence that "western military fleets" are "heading for Lebanon" or is this just someone's paranoid fantasy? It's been a few days and no one has come up with any hard evidence yet. Anybody?

reply to post by randomname


If I could flag a response, this would be flagged, in lieu of that, I will star and applaud you.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


They may have ships, but when the food runs out on board, as it will, they will not have people to fight for them.
Imagine if teh Iranians on board these warships revolt like the people of Egypt?

reply to post by stumason


Akrotiri in Cyprus is a very good, unsinkable aircraft carrier, but then the locals in Cyporus apbsolutely dtest the English, even more than they detest the Turks.

So we have two Aircraft carriers in the mediteranean/gulf area, and two around the Korean/Yellow sea area.

So much for Armed Forces being used for "defense", 4 out of 7 of our most dangerous and expensive ships are on the other side of the world. And who knows where the othere three even are?!