US Navy Repels Boatload of Aussie 'Weapons Inspectors'

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
US navy repels Carmen Lawrence and co

January 15 2003

The US navy today refused to allow a boat load of prominent West Australians, including Federal MP Carmen Lawrence, to conduct a "weapons inspection" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Accompanied by WA Greens MP Jim Scott and representatives of the legal and scientific communities, Dr Lawrence wanted to see the extent and nature of weapons of mass destruction aboard the world's largest aircraft carrier.

Up to two dozen West Australians sailed towards USS Abraham Lincoln in a yacht today - their mission to draw US attention to the fact that not all Australians want them here while their country is on a war footing with Iraq.

Dr Lawrence said the group also wanted to highlight the US's failure to disarm its own weapons of mass destruction.

"We were tying to illustrate the hypocrisy of the US position," the former Labor frontbencher said.

The US navy refused to allow the yacht to enter an exclusion zone around the aircraft carrier.

"In the end they did not allow us to board," Dr Lawrence said.

"We spoke briefly by radio telephone to the USS Abraham Lincoln and indicated that we were protesting at the US involvement in Iraq.

"And the fact that they could hold weapons of mass destruction off our shore without our having any knowledge."

One of three Australian water police boats patrolling the exclusion zone turned the delegation's yacht back after about half an hour.

"I think it would have been sensible of them to hear what we had to say," Dr Lawrence said.

"It would have been good public relations.

"As it is, they have chosen to adopt a fairly arrogant view and to refuse to hear local representatives."

USS Abraham Lincoln has been berthed off Fremantle for almost two weeks since being ordered back to the WA port, a week after it left, for maintenance and repair work.

Its return came amid speculation it was preparing for a war against Iraq, and fears its presence could make WA a target.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/15/1042520667095.htm

l:p
 
One of three Australian water police boats patrolling the exclusion zone turned the delegation's yacht back after about half an hour
I would've much preferred a warning shot across their bow, but so long as they didn't really bother anyone, I guess it's OK...
 
The decks of a U.S. warship are sovreign territory of the United States, <i>regardless</i> of where that ship happens to be berthed. Any attempt to board without proper authorization should and would be treated accordingly.
 
I think we should have allowed them aboard. We throw 'em into the brig and let them mull over the wrongfulness of their ways. :D
 
Lets see; intercept on radio and warn off, fire 5 inch gun across bow at 1 mile, 20mmmmmmmm cannons for effect at 1/2 mile.:D
 
I think we should have allowed them aboard. We throw 'em into the brig and let them mull over the wrongfulness of their ways.

Not all of them would fit. :D

I don't know what these yahoos are griping about. Let's just say that the special weapons program doesn't go to sea very much anymore (on a surface ship, at any rate), and leave it at that.
 
Heh.

While they may have some nukes on a carrier, the good stuff stays hidden as was eluded to.

They would probably crap their pants if they knew what we had underwater.

Idiots.
 
"As it is, they have chosen to adopt a fairly arrogant view..."

As far as I know, no navy on this planet lets anyone just board their vessels because they want to have a look around. To assume the US Navy will let you snoop around on their newest bird farm because you're a self-important local functionary...now that's arrogance.

Besides, something tells me that these guys wouldn't be able to tell a nuke warhead from a water boiler even if they *were* permitted on board.
 
The skipper of the USS Abraham Lincoln should have grabbed those rectal orifices, hauled them below deck to the torpedo tubes, load tubes 1-4 with the most annoying of those morons and launch them instead of expensive Mk-50's.

That would have been a good training for the sailors, a darn good lesson for the rest of the "green" scum in Australia and elsewhere and a fine feast for their beloved fish in the ocean.

:evil: :evil: :evil:
 
When is the US Navy going to make the debut of the Greeneville-class nuclear submarine with ramming capability? :D

A hardened top sail, 6500 tons of nuclear submarine blowing ballast and surfacing right underneath that Australian yacht, and we'd have a few dozen wet Australian muslim-terrorist sympathizers. :p

Besides, our nukes are hidden... there are probably a few near Australia, just in case the Chicoms decide to do something.
 
The U.S. Navy needs to reintroduce a long discarded war vessel. Yep. The war galley. Oar & wind powered, we can tow it behind the Lincoln and when we've got protestors (or even Al Qaeda), we chain them aboard our war galley. Then, when the winds are calm and the engineers aboard the Lincoln want to play football on the flightdeck, the war galley can be used to tow the Lincoln.

I want to name our war galley the U.S.S. William Jefferson Clinton. Where can we get a fat guy to beat the drum? :D
 
"The skipper of the USS Abraham Lincoln should have grabbed those rectal orifices, hauled them below deck to the torpedo tubes, load tubes 1-4 with the most annoying of those morons and launch them instead of expensive Mk-50's."

Since when does an aircraft carrier have underwater torpedo tubes?
 
If I'm not mistaken, after the Cole "incident", I think the navy began a policy of using force to stop unathorized vessels from coming near navel ships.
I suppose that if the Aussies had been a little more self important, they would have just tried to come right on out, instead of stopping at some point to explain what they thought they were going to do.
That would have made headlines.
 
Well as of last month policy WAS NOT changed. I got into a heated argument with naval officer defending the US navy's "sensitive" policy toward "civalian" small boats approaching US man of wars. The current policy(lunacy) is fire hoses with M-60 back up to "discourage" the many current incidents of such in Mid eastern and other areas! He said it was "a complicated issue" that demanded "sensitivity" to other cultures and that US Navy was in the " business of preserving lives" sounded straight out of failed Clintonista policy books. Where's the "barf" smilie?:banghead:
 
NO torpedo tubes on the "Abe Lincoln"??? :uhoh: :( :( :(

Too bad! ( I'm no sailor, so please forgive me my ignorance :eek: )

O.K. then let's stick to the time-honored method to blow them out of the water with a 5" shell.

Not nearly as funny, but very effective!
 
I guess you guys just don't get it.


We should have allowed them on board and honored their request to disarm our weapons.

Then they could have visited Saddam & Osama and asked them to do the decent and sensitive thing, too.

We could have headed off the war, all learned to be friends and tolerant and multiculteral together

and had peace in our time.

But because of backward, macho, arrogant attitudes, as shamefully displayed here, we missed the chance of a lifetime.

Kumbaya!

Matis
 
When are other countries going to realize that they are only allowed to exist because of the benevolent attitude of the U.S. If we ever decided to we would just take over the world and impose whatever belief system we desired on everyone. Does anyone think that if Japan or Germany had won WWII that we would not be speaking Japanese or German today? Australia, we will do what we want, when we want, and there isn't anything you or anyone else can do about it, so tell someone who cares. Start with Iraq.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top