Senate Member
Posts: 6,091 
July 15th, 2006, 04:32 PM
British ships heading for the Middle East
HMS Bulwark
Two British ships are being dispatched to the Middle East amid planning for a possible evacuation of British nationals from Lebanon.
The Ministry of Defence said that aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and assault ship HMS Bulwark were to be sent to the region.
An estimated 10,000 British citizens in Lebanon have been warned to prepare for a quick departure if the situation escalates.
A Ministry of Defence Spokeswoman stressed that the two ships had been given "no specific tasking''.
She said: `"As you would expect we are monitoring the situation closely and are engaging in prudent contingency planning.
"As part of this HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark will shortly head towards the region.
"They have been given no specific tasking.''
HMS Illustrious is currently in Gibraltar and HMS Bulwark is close to Barcelona in Spain.
The decision whether to proceed with an evacuation plan has not yet been taken and no orders have been given.
The Foreign Office has urged British citizens to keep a low profile and warned against travelling there.
Meetings on the evacuation plan are taking place at the Ministry of Defence.
aol.co.uk
British ships heading for the Middle East
HMS Bulwark
Two British ships are being dispatched to the Middle East amid planning for a possible evacuation of British nationals from Lebanon.
The Ministry of Defence said that aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious and assault ship HMS Bulwark were to be sent to the region.
An estimated 10,000 British citizens in Lebanon have been warned to prepare for a quick departure if the situation escalates.
A Ministry of Defence Spokeswoman stressed that the two ships had been given "no specific tasking''.
She said: `"As you would expect we are monitoring the situation closely and are engaging in prudent contingency planning.
"As part of this HMS Illustrious and HMS Bulwark will shortly head towards the region.
"They have been given no specific tasking.''
HMS Illustrious is currently in Gibraltar and HMS Bulwark is close to Barcelona in Spain.
The decision whether to proceed with an evacuation plan has not yet been taken and no orders have been given.
The Foreign Office has urged British citizens to keep a low profile and warned against travelling there.
Meetings on the evacuation plan are taking place at the Ministry of Defence.
aol.co.uk
Senate Member
Posts: 5,580
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
July 15th, 2006, 04:53 PM
Hezbollah and Hamas, at the urging of their lunatic, murdering masters in Iran and Syria started it.
Mind you, Israel has every intention of finishing it........
Quoting
The Israelis didn't start it.
Hope they send the rescue bill to the Israelis.
Hezbollah and Hamas, at the urging of their lunatic, murdering masters in Iran and Syria started it.
Mind you, Israel has every intention of finishing it........
July 15th, 2006, 05:10 PM
Quoting
Hezbollah and Hamas, at the urging of their lunatic, murdering masters in Iran and Syria started it.
Mind you, Israel has every intention of finishing it........
Finishing it? What a laugh, they're creating more terrorists. Their problems have barely started.
Quoting
The Israelis didn't start it.
Hope they send the rescue bill to the Israelis.
Hezbollah and Hamas, at the urging of their lunatic, murdering masters in Iran and Syria started it.
Mind you, Israel has every intention of finishing it........
Bright Spark
Posts: 315
July 15th, 2006, 06:02 PM
Egypt eventually realized that attacking Israel got them nowhere and cost them enormously. Jordan eventually got tired of destruction and kicked out the PLO. Syria after the last ass kicking from Yom Kipur decided to not give Isreal an excuse to invade again and instead keeps the fighting and destruction in Lebanon, it's puppet state.
Israel is not concerned about terroists in Lebanon, the are concerned about destroy military capability in Lebanon and possibly hoping for another Jorden where Lebanon tires of the destruction and rids itself of Hezbollah.
Quoting
History doesn't bear that out. Israel has only achieved any peace with its neighbors after unleashing a serious can of whoop ass.
Finishing it? What a laugh, they're creating more terrorists. Their problems have barely started.
Egypt eventually realized that attacking Israel got them nowhere and cost them enormously. Jordan eventually got tired of destruction and kicked out the PLO. Syria after the last ass kicking from Yom Kipur decided to not give Isreal an excuse to invade again and instead keeps the fighting and destruction in Lebanon, it's puppet state.
Israel is not concerned about terroists in Lebanon, the are concerned about destroy military capability in Lebanon and possibly hoping for another Jorden where Lebanon tires of the destruction and rids itself of Hezbollah.
Electoral Member
Posts: 285
Location: Ontario, Sadly
Location: Ontario, Sadly
July 15th, 2006, 10:23 PM
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968793972154
Quoting
I read this today and had the same reaction: Quoting
An estimated 10,000 British citizens in Lebanon
Quote:
I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.
About 10,000 Canadians are registered as being in the country, according to the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968793972154
Bright Spark
Posts: 310
Location: North Lauderdale, FL
Location: North Lauderdale, FL
July 16th, 2006, 08:59 PM
Quoting
Well, either we'll be renting those big Russian planes again and some ships or we'll be begging the Americans for some lift. It sucks to have no large lift capabilities integral to your armed forces.
I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.
Member
Posts: 155
Location: Aotearoa
Location: Aotearoa
July 16th, 2006, 10:07 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...canadians.html
The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?
Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.
Quoting
The government is hiring ships to evacuate any Canadians who wish to flee the country: Quoting
Well, either we'll be renting those big Russian planes again and some ships or we'll be begging the Americans for some lift. It sucks to have no large lift capabilities integral to your armed forces.
I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...canadians.html
The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?
Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,239
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
July 18th, 2006, 11:28 AM
Quoting
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...canadians.html
The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?
Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.
We shouldn't have to hire ships. The resources should already be at the hands of the Canadian Navy.
Quoting
The government is hiring ships to evacuate any Canadians who wish to flee the country: Quoting
Well, either we'll be renting those big Russian planes again and some ships or we'll be begging the Americans for some lift. It sucks to have no large lift capabilities integral to your armed forces.
I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...canadians.html
The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?
Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.
Member
Posts: 138
July 18th, 2006, 11:38 AM
Quoting
Why do we need warships to evacuate Canadian nationals from a country being threatened by our "ally"? For pomp? Or might we want to counter attack the Israelis?
Quoting
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...canadians.html
The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?
Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.
We shouldn't have to hire ships. The resources should already be at the hands of the Canadian Navy.
Quoting
The government is hiring ships to evacuate any Canadians who wish to flee the country: Quoting
Well, either we'll be renting those big Russian planes again and some ships or we'll be begging the Americans for some lift. It sucks to have no large lift capabilities integral to your armed forces.
I haven't heard anything about how we will get them out.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...canadians.html
The article says that it is a combined land sea and air rescue operation but doesn't mention what the air and land bits entail. Maybe they will fly citizens home who have evacuated on ships to Cyprus or by land to Syria?
Also interesting is that while the article says that there are 16000 registered Canadians in the country, there may be at least twice as many there.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,239
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
July 18th, 2006, 11:58 AM
Quote:
Ever heard of the Joint Support Ship Project? It was floated ages ago under the Liberals and never took off. On the 26th of June, 2006, the Conservatives ok'd the design and construction of three of these ships. Their roles; at sea replenishment of Naval taskgroups, helicopter sealift capability; troop lift capability. These ships are intended to be able to carry 1,000 troops (2,000 in surge mode) and to have a top cruising speed of 28+ knots. What would you rather have sailing in to a warzone to extract Canadian citizens? RENTED cruise ships with slow speed, limited payload, and NO defensive capability. Or Canadian Navy tactical sealift ships with huge payloads, high speeds, and onboard defensive capability? It's a no brainer.
Why do we need warships to evacuate Canadian nationals from a country being threatened by our "ally"? For pomp? Or might we want to counter attack the Israelis?
Super Genius
Posts: 1,239
Location: Edmonton
Location: Edmonton
July 18th, 2006, 01:40 PM
According to the United States Navy's website (feel free to check on this for yourself), the deployable battle force is 281 war vessels (surface and submarine), of which:
234 surface vessels are tasked out
34 submarines are tasked out
That is a total of 268 United States Naval Vessels currently on tasking; either on deployment or conducting another unnamed task. That leaves 13, 13 United States Naval vessels currently available for taskings. Now lets have a look at what major warships and/or task groups are tasked (not deployed on Operation):
Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Pacific Ocean
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Pusan, R.O.K.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean
Hospital Ships
USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) - Nias Island, Indonesia
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - South China Sea
USS Ogden (LPD 5) - port visit, Phuket, Thailand
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - South China Sea
Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Red Sea
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Red Sea
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Red Sea
Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Cleveland (LPD 7) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD
- Pacific Ocean
USS Denver (LPD 9) - Pacific Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Red Sea
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Sunda Sea
USS Rushmore (LSD 47) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) - Yokosuka, Japan
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic Ocean
Note where most of the vessels not on deployment are located? In or around Japan/China/North Korea.
Do I really need to go on? The United States Navy is stretched thin. They do not have at their disposal the type of vessels needed to mass-evac it's citizens, therefore it has been FORCED to rent ships. The fact remains they have the capability, however currently they're in the business of fighting two wars and preparing for a third.
Quoting
It's funny, I was going to say something about this, but I thought i'd just see how long it took for someone to bring it up. Yes, the U.S. is using ONE ship, due to the fact that it's Navy is at its highest oeprational tempo since the Gulf War in 1990-91. You are aware that the United States is at War in Iraq and Afghanistan right? Furthermore they are heavily committed to Japan, a committment that entails a large portion of the U.S. Navy surface fleet right?
Funny, the US is using cruise ships to evacuate Americans from Lebanon.
According to the United States Navy's website (feel free to check on this for yourself), the deployable battle force is 281 war vessels (surface and submarine), of which:
234 surface vessels are tasked out
34 submarines are tasked out
That is a total of 268 United States Naval Vessels currently on tasking; either on deployment or conducting another unnamed task. That leaves 13, 13 United States Naval vessels currently available for taskings. Now lets have a look at what major warships and/or task groups are tasked (not deployed on Operation):
Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Pacific Ocean
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Pusan, R.O.K.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean
Hospital Ships
USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) - Nias Island, Indonesia
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - South China Sea
USS Ogden (LPD 5) - port visit, Phuket, Thailand
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - South China Sea
Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Red Sea
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Red Sea
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Red Sea
Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Cleveland (LPD 7) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD
- Pacific Ocean USS Denver (LPD 9) - Pacific Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Red Sea
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Sunda Sea
USS Rushmore (LSD 47) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) - Yokosuka, Japan
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic Ocean
Note where most of the vessels not on deployment are located? In or around Japan/China/North Korea.
Do I really need to go on? The United States Navy is stretched thin. They do not have at their disposal the type of vessels needed to mass-evac it's citizens, therefore it has been FORCED to rent ships. The fact remains they have the capability, however currently they're in the business of fighting two wars and preparing for a third.
Electoral Member
Posts: 709
Location: Baja Canada
Location: Baja Canada
July 18th, 2006, 07:40 PM
That's downright embarrassing.
The US is evacuating its citizens from Lebanon, but it is going to bill them for the transport home. How about them apples?
Uncle
Quoting
According to the United States Navy's website (feel free to check on this for yourself), the deployable battle force is 281 war vessels (surface and submarine), of which:
234 surface vessels are tasked out
34 submarines are tasked out
That is a total of 268 United States Naval Vessels currently on tasking; either on deployment or conducting another unnamed task. That leaves 13, 13 United States Naval vessels currently available for taskings. Now lets have a look at what major warships and/or task groups are tasked (not deployed on Operation):
Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Pacific Ocean
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Pusan, R.O.K.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean
Hospital Ships
USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) - Nias Island, Indonesia
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - South China Sea
USS Ogden (LPD 5) - port visit, Phuket, Thailand
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - South China Sea
Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Red Sea
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Red Sea
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Red Sea
Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Cleveland (LPD 7) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD - Pacific Ocean
USS Denver (LPD 9) - Pacific Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Red Sea
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Sunda Sea
USS Rushmore (LSD 47) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) - Yokosuka, Japan
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic Ocean
Note where most of the vessels not on deployment are located? In or around Japan/China/North Korea.
Do I really need to go on? The United States Navy is stretched thin. They do not have at their disposal the type of vessels needed to mass-evac it's citizens, therefore it has been FORCED to rent ships. The fact remains they have the capability, however currently they're in the business of fighting two wars and preparing for a third.
Are you sure about that? Absolutely, positively 100% correct? Remember, the US bought several cruise ships for evacuees of Katrina. If we are stretched thin, it's because of insufficient support from other nations. Ahem, like Canada...2 ships? TWO? Quoting
It's funny, I was going to say something about this, but I thought i'd just see how long it took for someone to bring it up. Yes, the U.S. is using ONE ship, due to the fact that it's Navy is at its highest oeprational tempo since the Gulf War in 1990-91. You are aware that the United States is at War in Iraq and Afghanistan right? Furthermore they are heavily committed to Japan, a committment that entails a large portion of the U.S. Navy surface fleet right?
Funny, the US is using cruise ships to evacuate Americans from Lebanon.
According to the United States Navy's website (feel free to check on this for yourself), the deployable battle force is 281 war vessels (surface and submarine), of which:
234 surface vessels are tasked out
34 submarines are tasked out
That is a total of 268 United States Naval Vessels currently on tasking; either on deployment or conducting another unnamed task. That leaves 13, 13 United States Naval vessels currently available for taskings. Now lets have a look at what major warships and/or task groups are tasked (not deployed on Operation):
Carriers:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - Pacific Ocean
USS Enterprise (CVN 65) - Pusan, R.O.K.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Pacific Ocean
USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Atlantic Ocean
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) - Pacific Ocean
Hospital Ships
USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) - Nias Island, Indonesia
Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Peleliu (LHA 5) - South China Sea
USS Ogden (LPD 5) - port visit, Phuket, Thailand
USS Germantown (LSD 42) - South China Sea
Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Red Sea
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Red Sea
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Red Sea
Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Pacific Ocean
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Cleveland (LPD 7) - Pacific Ocean
USS Dubuque (LPD
- Pacific Ocean USS Denver (LPD 9) - Pacific Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Red Sea
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Pacific Ocean
USS Tortuga (LSD 46) - Sunda Sea
USS Rushmore (LSD 47) - Pacific Ocean
USS Harpers Ferry (LSD 49) - Yokosuka, Japan
USS Carter Hall (LSD 50) - Atlantic Ocean
Note where most of the vessels not on deployment are located? In or around Japan/China/North Korea.
Do I really need to go on? The United States Navy is stretched thin. They do not have at their disposal the type of vessels needed to mass-evac it's citizens, therefore it has been FORCED to rent ships. The fact remains they have the capability, however currently they're in the business of fighting two wars and preparing for a third.
That's downright embarrassing.
The US is evacuating its citizens from Lebanon, but it is going to bill them for the transport home. How about them apples?
Uncle
Bright Spark
Posts: 330 
July 18th, 2006, 09:58 PM
[quote="Mogz
We shouldn't have to hire ships. The resources should already be at the hands of the Canadian Navy.[/quote]
What navy?? A few leaky boats?? LOL
The government is sitting around with their thumbs up their butt while Canadians are dying over there. A very poor response. I have to agree with the criticizm from the families of the dead in Montreal. (Hmmmm, Quebec. I wonder if there is something in that?)
[quote="Mogz
We shouldn't have to hire ships. The resources should already be at the hands of the Canadian Navy.[/quote]
What navy?? A few leaky boats?? LOL
The government is sitting around with their thumbs up their butt while Canadians are dying over there. A very poor response. I have to agree with the criticizm from the families of the dead in Montreal. (Hmmmm, Quebec. I wonder if there is something in that?)
