Obama assassination bid fears aircraft carriers on standby off Irish coast during G8 summit

This is ridiculous!

Source

It is understood that a contingency plan is in place for the unlikely event that an attempt would be made on the President’s life.

Understood that 2 carriers, and and army 'protecting' the Potus in a friendly country?

The Secret Service also have diplomatic immunity which will allow them to shoot to kill a would-be assassin without fear of prosecution.

So the Waffen SS has 'diplomatic immunity' means they can shoot and kill anyone even if it's not a 'would be assassin'.


Hell if only they gave 1/3 of that security to embassies like in Benghazi 4 Americans would be alive to day

How much is this going to cost us???

Aircraft carriers???

reply to post by neo96




Aircraft Carriers Protecting the President.

Can't you Imagine the Response Time.

That is One Hell of a WASTE of Money. I hope they aren't getting that from Our TAX Dollars.

I would think that a Ground Force surrounding him 360 Degrees and moving using Bounding Over Watch would be Much more effective.

Damn Tax Spenders.

I doubt it would be just the carriers. Aircraft carriers move in battle groups, so I would expect that the scale is even larger then implied in the article. My guess would be about 15 ships in total. Thats a lot of firepower and a lot of money spent.

reply to post by neo96


Your link does not work.

Hell if only they gave 1/3 of that security to embassies like in Benghazi 4 Americans would be alive to day

Perhaps you should blame your Rabid Right friends.

Since retaking control in 2010, House Republicans have aggressively cut spending at the State Department in general and embassy security in particular. Chaffetz and Issa and their colleagues voted to pay for far less security than the State Department requested in 2011 and again this year.

Libya attack: Congressmen casting blame voted to cut diplomatic security budget

reply to post by neo96


Ask yourself the more basic question - why have these meetings in unsecured cities or towns to start with?

Why not use a military base? We have hundreds of them, both operational and derelict. Why not use an aircraft carrier? Why not just have a phone conference?

Why do these people even need to pick new locations each time, spending millions on security and weaponry, inconveniencing the population?

There are plenty of old airfields with fences and buildings out of the way of a town or city, but these arrogant sons of *itches always pick a built up area and cause massive disruption with expensive security almost as though they DELIBERATELY WANT US to see the power and might of their wall of armed goons.

reply to post by BritofTexas


Perhaps people should look up congressional testimony instead:

Like

QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there? DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

Source
Link fixed.

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Ask yourself the more basic question - why have these meetings in unsecured cities or towns to start with?

Because they are supposed to be Civilian Leaders not Military Dictators?

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by neo96

 

Your link does not work.

Hell if only they gave 1/3 of that security to embassies like in Benghazi 4 Americans would be alive to day

Perhaps you should blame your Rabid Right friends.

Since retaking control in 2010, House Republicans have aggressively cut spending at the State Department in general and embassy security in particular. Chaffetz and Issa and their colleagues voted to pay for far less security than the State Department requested in 2011 and again this year.

Libya attack: Congressmen casting blame voted to cut diplomatic security budget

Hmm, so if your budget is reduced, do you spend your money on fun things like parties and trips or do you stop those and spend your money on what you actually need.

Part of cutting the budget was removing the carrier battle group and the MEU from the med and SPECIFICALLY putting contingency troops and aircraft in Sigonella for extactly this very reason--an hour away from Lybia--but they were told to stand down.

Nope, the blame still rests on Ms. Clinton and the Administration.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Yeah

I'd rather see carrier battle groups actually protecting people who are more worthy.

A potus with his army already on the ground in a friendly country doesn't rate that 'overkill'.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Ask yourself the more basic question - why have these meetings in unsecured cities or towns to start with?

Because they are supposed to be Civilian Leaders not Military Dictators?

The location of the meeting has no bearing on whether a leader is a dictator or not. This is not a publicly accessible meeting. This isn't a chat over coffee and biscuits with the public.

Why is this any different? There are thousands of armed security personnel, military, secret service... and you want to claim that the sight of that all over the streets of a town or city is anything less than the image of a dictatorship?

reply to post by neo96

Understood that 2 carriers, and and army 'protecting' the Potus in a friendly country?

LOL when you are talking about Obama, not even the good ole US of A is considered a friendly country. I'm sure Bush would have had similar protection if the peabrain ever managed to go somewhere outside of crawford

So......if somebodt whacks him what will we do?
Bomb ENGLAND?

Well, if he needs aircraft carrier protection in Ireland, will they need to build a fort in Africa when he takes the family on vacation there?

Originally posted by stirling
So......if somebodt whacks him what will we do?
Bomb ENGLAND?

No bomb Ireland!!!!

Originally posted by stirling
So......if somebodt whacks him what will we do?
Bomb ENGLAND?

Well, yeah.

We would have to, they have weapons of mass destruction there.

reply to post by butcherguy


Oh, .. you mean the Bobbies with the Billy Clubs?

Its a Vicious World out there.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Oh, .. you mean the Bobbies with the Billy Clubs?

Its a Vicious World out there.

They can be dangerous. (thinking of Mr Bean right now)

But I meant nerve gas/nuclear weapons.

I think they're there for other reasons in the ME

oops...double post.