Stennis Deploying Today
My old aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) -- OK, it wasn't really "mine", since I was just a staff weenie, but I did do a deployment on her -- is deploying from Washington state today on her way to the Fifth Fleet AOR. She was originally going to do a WestPac, but got her orders switched last month; the Reagan will be handling her original WestPac responsibilities. Expect this news to touch off a new round of "we're about to attack Iran" nonsense. I blogged about this several times recently, but I'll probably look at it again soon. In the meantime, please feel free to discuss in the comments.
(Bonus fun skimmer fact: When I deployed on the Stennis, I found that the skimmers called a deployment a "cruise". How lame is that?)
Update 0017 17 January: Here's the Navy NewsStand article on the Stennis getting underway.
Update 2347 21 January: And here's the Navy NewsStand article on the Stennis leaving San Diego after picking up her air wing.
posted by Bubblehead at 7:47 AM
17 Comments:
Bonus fun gator fact: And the Marines call it a "Float" - which I guess is better than a Bubblehead "Sink".
1/16/2007 8:31 AM
ATTN: BubbleHead
please don't dismiss the notion that "we're about to attack Iran" as "nonsense"
it is the stated policy of the US government NOT to take the military option off the table.
also, the military option is one of keystones of US policy vis-a-vi Iran
finally, isn't this the same administration that publically denied that it had decided not to invade Iraq while it held the opposite position privately
~ theDdoubleSstandard
1/16/2007 8:53 AM
dear bubblehead:
today’s post was linked to your December 22, 2006 post where, again, you dismissed the likelihood of military operations against Iran
here’s a cut-n-paste from that prior post: “Leaving aside the political unlikelihood of successfully opening a new front in the War on Terror without Congressional authorization, there hasn't been any indication of other military precursors you'd see if we were about to attack someone new”
although I am a newcomer to your weblog, I request that you re-visit this issue with emphasis upon (1) the administrations contention that Congressional authorization is NOT needed and (2) the “indication of other military precursors” since December 22, 2006
If you are given the choice of an increased or decreased probability of attacking Iran, the evidence is building up for the former and not the latter
~ theDdoubleSstandard
1/16/2007 9:19 AM
Okay, please for a dumb Grunt...
Is a skimmer a surface warfare type?
Thanks
1/16/2007 9:41 AM
Regarding carriers, I am a submariner who spent a fair amount of time daily on the Enterprise. There were albums for each and every "cruise", and each contained memorials for the fliers and crew who perished during them.
I recall the 6th Fleet cruise where pilots were lost on four, separate occasions in about that many weeks. Two flew into mountains. A repair mechanic was killed upon ejecting into the overhead of the hangar deck one day. Two photo reconaissance aircraft had been pushed over the side the week before my first visit.
I was still assigned to a submarine, but the Enterprise was our poast office and guard mail center.
albany rifles, yes, skimmer is a submariner's derisive term for surface sailors (targets is another).
1/16/2007 10:07 AM
theDdoubleSstandard, you are in over your head, bud.
The favored (proclaimed and demonstrated) tactic of ununiformed, civilian-masquerading Islamist fascists is simultaneous bombings of high-profile targets.
George Bush's proclaimed doctrine is peremptory attack on states sponsoring or harboring these slime. He has yet to demonstrate it, however, preferring to contort through UN and legal hurdles. Those days will come to an abrupt end, when and if necessary to protect our republic. You will nevertheless maintain your right to bark at the moon and criticize our CIC.
Please share with us, what other country is a more attractive model of individual freedoms, successful enterprise, scientific and medical breakthroughs and assistance to impoverished nations than the one you disparage routinely? - Blacky
1/16/2007 10:33 AM
ATTN: Blacky
you had a lotta verbage in your above comment and i couldn't tell if you definitively addressed the issue raised by BubbleHead
after repeated reading your rambling comment, i couldn't discern if you agreed or disagreed with the assumption that "we're about to attack Iran"
please clarify your "answer" about the probability of attacking Iran
~ theDdoubleSstandard
1/16/2007 11:15 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
1/16/2007 11:42 AM
theDdoubleSstandard,
I doubt it will ever be necessary for U.S. forces to attack Iran.
That would eventuality depend upon Ahmadinejad remaining in power, committing a flagrant act of war, or sponsoring sureptitious preparations for major acts of terrorism tantamount to an act of war.
- Blacky
1/16/2007 11:45 AM
DdoubleSstandard,
you never answered Blacky's question:
"What other country is a more attractive model of individual freedoms, successful enterprise, scientific and medical breakthroughs and assistance to impoverished nations than the one you disparage routinely?" BigMomma
1/16/2007 11:54 AM
Attn: Blacky
you posted the following - "I doubt it will ever be necessary for U.S. forces to attack Iran."
the question wasn't about one's doubt
the questions was "do you agree or disagree with BubbleHead's notion that it is 'nonsense' that 'we're about to attack Iran' ?"
please see my 9:19am comment
~ theDdoubleSstandard
ATTN: BigMomma
i don't see how Blacky's question is germaine to the issue at hand (attacking Iran)
in any event, i don't think that i could accurately answer the question unless you tell me what criteria Blacky or you use to determine "What other country is a more attractive model of individual freedoms, successful enterprise, scientific and medical breakthroughs ...?"
~ theDdoubleSstandard
1/16/2007 1:39 PM
I'd encourage people to just let DdSs -- the stuttering, spelling-challenged, attention-needing boor -- stew in his own juices. He's clearly a Wikipedia writer/exile (e.g., the obtuse and sarcastic use of "please don't (fill in the blank)" feigned politeness of Wiki editors) who's looking for another place to haunt with his diatribes, because the problem is that there are too few people for fellow leftists/moonbats to argue with there.
Besides being over his head when it comes to command of the English language (it's "germane," DdoubleSstandard...or did you perhaps mean "German?"), he clearly has a left-only grasp of the U.S., the U.S. military, world history, and submarine operations.
Opinionated people of the left-ish persuasion have a core problem regarding their ability to process information. Besides, he's not here to _communicate_...he's here to be a walkie-talkie stuck in 'transmit' mode.
So put him on "ignore," folks...outside of commenting on his spelling errors, he doesn't deserve a direct response.
1/16/2007 2:12 PM
Bubbles, man, it's like you were just sitting there saying something, and the clown car pulls up and they've all got those bicycle horns and honking everywhere...
1/16/2007 6:21 PM
DS I believe that what Bubblehead has beens saying is that Carrier battle groups deploying early or having two carriers in the same are not "not" signs of any intention of the US to attack Iran. These are merely normal scheduled roations of Navy units on deployement. I think that everyone would agree that if there was an attack it would be better to have it while we had maximum comabt power in the area instead of afterwards when the second carrier had finished its deplyement and headed home.
Case in point, I remember when Qadaffi in Libya was giving us lots of trouble in the 80s, we had for a short period three carrier groups in the Med. Everyone in the press seemed to think that the attack would be then because of the build up of forces. Seems to make sense, but the attack came after there were only two carriers left in the Med. Planned deception or not? Who knows, but it does show that build up of forces is sometimes just prudent or a coincidence, not a firm indication of what will happen.
1/16/2007 6:59 PM
The theories of imminent invasion are difficult to argue with when such highly placed and well informed individuals speak their mind. http://www.mosnews.com/news/2007/01/15/admiral.shtml
1/16/2007 8:00 PM
Okay Bubblehead, the jig is up! I have deduced that you are theDDDdddoubbbleSSttandarddd, and you have been purposely posting these vague, lame, and upper-case-and-puncuationally-challenged postings so as to create controversy.
Case in point: Rosie vs. Donald. Admit it Bubb, you saw the ratings bonanza for both of those idiots, and you decided it would be good business to do a little of that for yourself!
Good ploy, Bubb (AKA, tTdDSsDddd), but we're onto you!
Okay, seriously now, who is this double stadard guy, what does he think he knows, and why is he treading into this area? He's curious about submarine blogs, okay, that's cool, but get a clue before you shoot all four tubes!
Still, BH, I applaud your ploy! Hee hee!
1/16/2007 11:51 PM
Actually, I do figure that "Blacky" and theddoublesstandard are the same person ("Blacky" used the "ATTN: Bubblehead" thing in the previous post). While I'm not always Bubblehead on other blogs, I can categorically state that I've never posted as anyone other than myself here -- that's one blog "rule" that I heartily agree with. I'm also pretty sure that I haven't ever "argued" with myself in any thread -- that's just sad.
1/17/2007 6:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home