Jump to content

Someone please tell me this is hype from the right

whateverdude
 Share

Recommended Posts

GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted

I can not believe this to be true! Is it normal for presidents to spend so much and do it in such a big way when talking a trip?

WTF-34 warships?

 

Think about the larger geopolitical and economic context for a second of why US would want to send a large naval force to the Indian Ocean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OCinBuffalo All Pro

OCinBuffalo

Posted
Posted

I can not believe this to be true! Is it normal for presidents to spend so much and do it in such a big way when talking a trip?

WTF-34 warships?

Sends a reminder that "we can kick your ass from the sea". Not a big deal to me.

 

You have to remember that India isn't necessarily our friend. They got to the "land grab game" late, and didn't get anything. They antagonize Pakistan every bit as much as Pakistan antagonizes them. There's all kinds of trouble in that part of the world just waiting to break loose.

 

Our navy, and the rest of NATO's, is one of the reasons it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike in Syracuse Veteran

Mike in Syracuse

Posted
Posted

I can not believe this to be true! Is it normal for presidents to spend so much and do it in such a big way when talking a trip?

WTF-34 warships?

 

A typical carrier strike group is 8-10 ships so that's 1/3 of the group. There's also a number of smaller patrol type, fast attack boats to prevent a Yemen type incident. We're still actively engaged in two wars and there's a whole lot of people on that side of the world who'd like nothing more than to try and kill a U.S. President. They really don't care if he's a Democrat or a Republican, they'd just like to kill him.

 

I have a close friend in naval intelligence. All those ships aren't there for the President's visit and almost half were already on station "in the vicinity"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary M Veteran

Gary M

Posted
Posted

A typical carrier strike group is 8-10 ships so that's 1/3 of the group. There's also a number of smaller patrol type, fast attack boats to prevent a Yemen type incident. We're still actively engaged in two wars and there's a whole lot of people on that side of the world who'd like nothing more than to try and kill a U.S. President. They really don't care if he's a Democrat or a Republican, they'd just like to kill him.

 

I have a close friend in naval intelligence. All those ships aren't there for the President's visit and almost half were already on station "in the vicinity"

 

Man that articlehas an aweful lot of info about his travel and where he is staying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

A typical carrier strike group is 8-10 ships so that's 1/3 of the group. There's also a number of smaller patrol type, fast attack boats to prevent a Yemen type incident. We're still actively engaged in two wars and there's a whole lot of people on that side of the world who'd like nothing more than to try and kill a U.S. President. They really don't care if he's a Democrat or a Republican, they'd just like to kill him.

 

I have a close friend in naval intelligence. All those ships aren't there for the President's visit and almost half were already on station "in the vicinity"

 

What he said. Whoever wrote that article didn't seem to understand that the Fifth Fleet is a permanent fixture in the Arabian Gulf, and the Seventh is responsible for the rest of the Indian Ocean. That right there is a hell of a lot of ships already in the area. Obama's not "bringing them with".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drnykterstein Veteran

drnykterstein

Posted
Posted

I can not believe this to be true! Is it normal for presidents to spend so much and do it in such a big way when talking a trip?

WTF-34 warships?

!@#$ you for wanting to put the President of the United Stats of America's life at risk so you can save some pennies on your taxes. He'll be close to terrorist territory, his safety is priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dante All Pro

Dante

Posted
Posted (edited)

A typical carrier strike group is 8-10 ships so that's 1/3 of the group. There's also a number of smaller patrol type, fast attack boats to prevent a Yemen type incident. We're still actively engaged in two wars and there's a whole lot of people on that side of the world who'd like nothing more than to try and kill a U.S. President. They really don't care if he's a Democrat or a Republican, they'd just like to kill him.

 

I have a close friend in naval intelligence. All those ships aren't there for the President's visit and almost half were already on station "in the vicinity"

I don't know why any country or organization that hated the US would even think about killing this guy. I'm not even being flippant by saying our guy is doing much more damage than any of them could do. He is a ally not a foe to them.

Edited by Dante
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike in Syracuse Veteran

Mike in Syracuse

Posted
Posted

What he said. Whoever wrote that article didn't seem to understand that the Fifth Fleet is a permanent fixture in the Arabian Gulf, and the Seventh is responsible for the rest of the Indian Ocean. That right there is a hell of a lot of ships already in the area. Obama's not "bringing them with".

 

Not to mention that the US Navy isn't exactly open to telling foreign "journalists" their travel plans!

 

I don't know why any country or organization that hated the US would even think about killing this guy. I'm not even being flippant by saying our guy is doing much more damage than any of them could do. He is a ally not a foe to them.

 

There's a few hundred people that have first hand experience with the capabilities of the MQ-9 that would disagree with you. Well, they would if they were still alive.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike in Syracuse Veteran

Mike in Syracuse

Posted
Posted

I thought this was worth updating since it finally hit the mainstream news:

 

"The Pentagon did not mince words in dismissing as “absolutely absurd” and “comical” media reports from Indian news outlets that the US Navy was sending 34 warships off the coast of Mumbai as part of the security preparations for President Obama’s upcoming trip to India."

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/11/pentagon-dismisses-reports-of-34-warships-for-obama-trip-security.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nanker Hall of Famer

Nanker

Posted
Posted

!@#$ you for wanting to put the President of the United Stats of America's life at risk so you can save some pennies on your taxes. He'll be close to terrorist territory, his safety is priority.

 

Rather harsh words for a Canadian, I say. Be that as it may, I hope you got one of these jobs, though you'd undoubtedly do it for free - as long as your expenses were covered, no doubt.

I do agree in principle, that the US President - no matter how low his opinion polls are tracking, no matter how odious an agenda he/she's foisting on the American public - deserves to be secure at all times. That being said, I'd rather he used WebEx or GoToMeeting more. He's far too visible and when a President is visible, it costs a lot to keep him/her safe. I also don't believe the $200m price tag that's being bandied about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

Probably not since the days of the Pharaohs or the more ludicrous Roman Emperors has a head of state travelled in such pomp and expensive grandeur as the President of the United States of America.

 

UK Daily Mail

 

That article reads like it was a post written by Conner after ten minutes of googling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...