US warship docks in Georgia port

[inanna]

Source: BBC

A US warship has arrived in the Georgian port of Batumi carrying the first delivery of aid supplies by sea.

<snip>

The BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse, in Tbilisi, said that apart from delivering aid, the arrival of US naval personnel is undoubtedly intended to send a signal to the Russians - that America is serious about its support for Georgia.

But, he adds, the prospect of US and Russian armed forces actually meeting on Georgian soil is one that both sides seem keen to avoid.

Batumi is not a natural harbour for a naval vessel the size of the USS McFaul to dock but Russian forces have been fortifying their positions at the key port of Poti, further up the coast.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7579506.stm

[regnaD kciN]

1. "False Flag," anyone?

Wouldn't it be convenient if there was an attack on that warship that could be blamed on Russia? All of a sudden, "national security" and toughness in foreign policy would be at the top of the agenda for the coming election...benefiting guess who?

:tinfoilhat:

[ohio2007]

2. Georgian fuel train 'blown up by mine' (well , there ya go )

A fuel train exploded today on Georgia’s main east-west rail line and police said it appeared to have hit a landmine.

Officials said that the train was on the main track of the line linking eastern and western Georgia, a vital trade route for oil exports from Azerbaijan to European markets.


snip
On August 16, an explosion brought down a bridge on the line further east near the town of Kaspi. Russia denied Georgian accusations that it was behind the attack.

Oil exports were disrupted, but Azerbaijan said Georgia had offered a smaller, disused rail bridge for use until the damaged bridge was repaired.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4599844.ece

Russia can't be blamed as they no longer have soldiers in Georgia ;)

Now then,
where is that smaller,unused rail line......

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92OKKM80&show_article=1&catnum=0

[AlphaCentauri]

6. russians don't need sabotage operations

they can just do it openly, why bother planting bombs if they can do it with an air strike?

more likely the Georgian government would sabotage their own installations to be a NATO member.

[lovuian]

3. this is pathetic sending One ship against the whole

Russian navy its a joke

[The Croquist]

5. What would you prefer?

Sending a carrier into the harbor?

The Russian navy is a joke.

[AlphaCentauri]

8. alway the pro war team sub estimate the "enemies"

[The Croquist]

12. I am not in favor of going to war to support Georgia

As much as I would like to see the Russians lose I am not willing to go to war over it. I am willing to go to war to protect NATO but, fortunately, Georgia is not in NATO.

By the way the Russian Navy is a joke. I wouldn't say that about their Air Force or Army but I will say that about their Navy.

[LanternWaste]

13. I believe it's merely a declaration of solidarity

I believe it's merely a declaration of solidarity towards Georgia more than it is the U.S. Black See fleet posturing itself to make an attack on the Russian fleet as you've implied. I honestly don't think the pentagon would send one guided destroyer to take on six missile boats,four missile corvettes, five ASW corvettes, two attack subs,two guided missile frigates, three guided destroyers, and one guided missile cruiser.

To be honest, I think that even surmising that possibility is somewhat... myopic in its scope.

[bemildred]

4. Cannon fodder. nt

[Junkdrawer]

7. Superpower confrontation timed for the Democratic Convention...

How Conveeenient...

[AlphaCentauri]

9. mayor distraction? agree

[happygoluckytoyou]

10. ELECTION COMING.... time to break out a warship or two and kill some civilians, maybe a commie or 2

[sofa king]

11. Interesting.

The Arliegh Burke-class destroyers are in many ways (firepower, speed, shaft horsepower) more comparable to the American heavy cruisers of World War II. As a cynical guess, I'd say they're called destroyers because Congress thinks that destroyers are cheaper than cruisers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Houston_(CA-30)

To further complicate matters, modern U.S. Aegis missile cruisers are actually built on destroyer hulls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruance_class_destroyer

Anyway, parking one of those things in a war zone has a definite and noticeable effect, because just one controls a huge swath of air and surface sea space, in which one doesn't wish to accidentally wander.

[LanternWaste]

14. The nomenclature of destroyer, cruiser, frigate, etc

The nomenclature of destroyer, cruiser, frigate, etc. are merely indicative of ship displacement, not of cost or power projection ability.