Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pat Mcgroin

Coast Guard dispatching ships and personnel to Costa Rica to threaten

Recommended Posts

Kenn, as I was reading your post, I kept nodding my head and say, "Yep, yep, yep." The thing that bothers me the most is the assumption of many people from the US that whatever is made or done or thought or lived is so much better than anywhere else. Sometimes, something is not better, just different. Besides, what is "better" to someone else may not be "better" to you or to me. I would like to see people stop using the US as a yardstick for every country in the world.

 

I am sure that the military medical personnel that spend time in Costa Rica are pleased to be able to help people. That is their job. But the whole thing smacks of an attempt on the part of the Southern Command to soften the military presence in Latin America which has an ugly history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would tell the US politely that I prefer not to have their soldiers in CR. It's safer for CR this way. Sure, it's probably nothing, but this is a dangerous bunch to welcome and the US military doesn't have such a great track record here. I mean, despite what gringos tell themselves, name one time that the US military has ever helped CR. Right, you can't do it, because there hasn't been one time. The US military has been a problem for CR, but never once helped. In dunno, if I were Tico I would say "no thanks," politely of course!

 

People love to brag about Costa Rica as being a peace loving country, having no standing army since 1948. I argue it has a de facto military. Who ya gonna call next time Costa Rica? Ghost Busters or the U.S. military, again?!!! Grow up get real, and get off your so called peace loving high horses all you U.S. protesters. Who needs an expensive military of your own when you have the best in the world in your hip pocket for free? You protest against the U.S. and its military on the one hand and come crying to Uncle Sam for financial aid and military support on the other. So quit the hypocrisy already!! After the revolution of 48, the U.S. bailed Costa Rica out financially from its decade long economic slump. And who backed up your revolutionary hero, Figueres, who you still hold in high regard today? The U.S., that's who. So put up or shut up. Either pay your own way financially and defend yourself against all enemies foreign and domestic and retain bragging rights. Or continue to accept financial and military assistance and shut up about it already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Every country on the planet (including Costa Rica with no current "standing" army) interacts with its neighbors and the world promoting in its own nationalistic self interests. The primary function of all responsible governments is the security and safety of its inhabitants. Costa Rica continues with no standing army because its leaders/people believe that is the best way to ensure the safety of its citizens. You can disagree with the strategy (no army) but the motivation of self interest is universal and is as applicable to Costa Rica as with any other country. Costa Rica's no army status is not now, and never has been for the promotion of peace outside its boarders!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The origin of the abolition of the army is mostly misunderstood by today's Costa Ricans and foreigners alike through a rewrite of the Costa Rican school curriculum and propaganda. My Costa Rican mother in law and other non Figueres supporters know and can tell you the true story. To the victors go the spoils of war and the rights to propaganda.

 

 

The abolishment of the army was definitely not some kind of nirvana epiphany moment of peace, good will, and a love for its neighboring countries. It was simply a tactical maneuver to put the death nail into any potential opposing force and to consolidate power and control over the country by the revolutionary "hero", Jose Figueres. I say "hero" because that's the way history has been rewritten to favor the revolution. It was at that time (1948 – 1949) he also temporarily abolished the legislative branch of the government, trashed the constitution, and ruled Costa Rica through his revolutionary junta for a period of 18 months. Why only 18 months? Because he figured it would take him that long to firmly establish his power base through his newly formed political National Liberation Party (the same NLP party still active and in power today) and finish cleansing Costa Rica of his political opponents.

 

 

Many social reforms taken for granted today by Costa Ricans such as the social security system, labor codes, housing for the poor, progressive income tax, and the reopening of the state university are incorrectly attributed to the revolutionary Jose Figueres when in fact they were instituted previously by his political opponent Calderon who was forced into exile to Nicaragua.

 

 

Read on if you want to know how a violent traitor comes to be known as a hero.

 

 

Basically Jose Figueres was a loud mouthed violent revolutionary with aspirations of absolute power. He started preparing and training a paramilitary force since 1942 for a military offensive and overthrow of the Costa Rican government. He conspired with other revolutionary types to expand their control throughout the Americas after they had finished the Costa Rican job. That plan never came to fruition. He was successful in unfairly labeling his political opponents Calderon, Mora, and the political party in power in Costa Rica as having more Communist ties and sympathies than was the case. The election dispute of 1948 and the severe prolonged economic crisis and resulting social upheaval presented him with his window of opportunity. He seized power, by overthrowing the legitimate government with his own military force backed by the threat of U.S. military intervention. At the time the U.S. was concerned with the expansion of communism throughout the Americas. The U.S. had ships stationed off the Coast of Panama.

 

 

After a relatively short military campaign and 1000 to 2000 mainly civilian deaths, the legitimate governmental forces of Costa Rica capitulated to the military forces of Figueres; primarily because of the aforementioned threat of U.S. military intervention and a lack of supplies. Costa Rica's supply line to the north through Nicaragua had been blocked by Samosa; Figueres and his forces approached the government forces from the south. As a result the eventual outcome was a forgone conclusion. The only concern for then Costa Rican president Picado once defeat was determined to be inevitable was to save as many Costa Rican lives as possible. On the other hand, the violent revolutionary "hero" "Don Pepe" Figueres was prepared and would have killed as many opposing patriotic Costa Ricans as necessary to secure his grab for power. The real Costa Rican hero in the conflict was the overthrown legitimate head of government, President Picado for not pressing forward with what would have been a prolonged blood bath.

 

 

Once in power Fegueres ruled through his revolutionary junta with an iron fist cleansing Costa Rica of his political opponents. He temporarily disbanded the legislature and abolished the constitution. Once he got all the institutional changes in place, he transferred power to Ulate (His man in the disputed election of 48) and then reauthorized the legislature. To this day, no one knows for sure who won the election of 1948, Ulate or Calderon. Figueres abolished the standing army early on as a strategy simply to hold onto power to and establish his political power base. He saw military allegiances as fickle and unstable and a threat to his retention of power. And after all, he had the U.S. military as his ace in the hole should anything truly threaten his hold on power and interfere with his plans. His newly secured political power base ensured his subsequent election as Costa Rican president after Ulate's term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anything on this forum about Figueres so your long discourse about him perhaps belongs in another thread. As for ".. Either pay your own way financially and defend yourself against all enemies foreign and domestic and retain bragging rights. Or continue to accept financial and military assistance and shut up about it already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.." Since you are such a fine historian, has there been a time since 1948 that the US military has had to defend Costa Rica against a foreign enemy? You are making an assumption (and you know what happens when you assume) that Costa Rica would call on the US first and foremost for any intervention in a military situation. This may or may not be true. Costa Rica does have other allies. And what type of military aid has Costa Rican gotten from the US?

 

As for promoting peace outside its "boarders", how about Don Oscar's Nobel Prize or his recent encouragement to other countries, particularly poor countries, to disband their Army and put that money to better use for their citizens?

 

Bottom line, unless those among us are Costa Rican citizens, we are all sitting by the sidelines, watching and ranting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are making an assumption (and you know what happens when you assume) that Costa Rica would call on the US first and foremost for any intervention in a military situation. This may or may not be true. Costa Rica does have other allies.

 

Actually Eleanorcr you are correct to a degree. Costa Rica is a member of the United Nations and it's the United Nations that CR would publicly turn to first for help if it were to find itself invaded or find the threat of invasion. Part of the United Nations role is to prevent conflicts, enforce peace agreements and discourage hostilities.

 

The second public appeal for help would probably be to the OAS of which CR is also a part.

 

However, the UN has no military force and relies instead on volunteer forces from its members. What this boils down to is the US would come down and help its democratic friend to the South with other EU and possibly some OAS countries throwing in smaller forces to help with supply, intelligence, transportation and the like.

 

As far as behind the scenes the UN or the OAS would probably not be CR's first call. When you know who's really coming en force and who has a lot of influence on the world stage with both the UN and the OAS its the US who's phone would be ringing first. (The US is the single biggest contributor to both the UN and the OAS which of course helps).

 

 

BTW - As an aside this thread really needs to go the way of the dodo. All the fun is on the other forums with the hilarious theories that have popped up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back on topic --

 

Does anyone know whether this er, task force is "46 warships" or is it really a series of Coast Guard ships. And are they deployed all at once, all the time, or will they be a few here and there for a total of 46? I'm having trouble with this -- I have found conflicting stories, depending on where you read. Of course, they don't want to give out too many details and alert the drug runners, but ... anyone know?

 

PS Timothy -- Actually, I am correct to a degree? In reality, none of us knows what would happen if Costa Rica were threatened. It is all speculation. I was just trying to paint a scenario that there are other countries in the world other than the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back on topic --

 

Does anyone know whether this er, task force is "46 warships" or is it really a series of Coast Guard ships. And are they deployed all at once, all the time, or will they be a few here and there for a total of 46? I'm having trouble with this -- I have found conflicting stories, depending on where you read. Of course, they don't want to give out too many details and alert the drug runners, but ... anyone know?

 

PS Timothy -- Actually, I am correct to a degree? In reality, none of us knows what would happen if Costa Rica were threatened. It is all speculation. I was just trying to paint a scenario that there are other countries in the world other than the US.

 

It's not 46 ships all at once and their not warships. I suppose the term "warships" though is subject to interpretation. For example I don't consider a Coast Guard ship a "warship" but some might. It depends really on how one is spinning their side.

 

As far as what would happen if CR is threatened or attacked it is not speculation. Costa Rica is a charter member of the OAS (the first OAS session was actually held in San Jose in 1971) and is of course also a member of the UN. It is the job of both the UN and the OAS to defend their members. The process is formal, it’s in place and has already been used by other countries (see example below). The reality is CR diplomats in both organizations would be working simultaneously for a response while also working in Washington DC for US support and pressure on the UN and OAS.

 

So, if attacked or threatened CR would appeal to both the UN and the OAS for help of which they would surely receive. As far as which nations would be responding en force, it would be again led by... you guessed it, the US. There is no speculation there either. The US just has the military to respond (although currently stretched thin) and has reiterated time and time again that its role is to defend democratic nations.

 

The real speculation would be on who else would send a major force. One could speculate that Brazil has the capacity to send a large force as Brazil is also a charter member of both the UN and the OAS and is geographically close. (Brazil also happens to have the largest military force in Latin America).

 

Anyway, a high level example of how it works in five sentences…

 

Kuwait was invaded and annexed by Iraq in 1990. Kuwait appealed to the United Nations for help as is protocol. The UN went to the aid of its member and tried diplomatic solutions. The UN diplomatic solutions failed to remove Iraq from Kuwait. The UN then went into Kuwait and Iraq with a US led 34 nation coalition and freed Kuwait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider Coast Guard vessels "warships."

 

I had read/heard that there would be actual Navy "warships" but perhaps this is not accurate. Based on everything that is going on in the US, I couldn't imagine sending this kind of "fleet" to be on duty for six months off the coasts of Costa Rica - but - stranger things have happened. If these are indeed Coast Guard ships and they will be more or less "cycling" through the areas, I cannot imagine how this story got so blown out of proportion/screwed up. It is not any kind of "invasion force" but just a beefing up of the usual drug interdiction by the US Coast Guard.

 

And now, for those 7,000 Marines ... Is this even accurate? If you divide the 7,000 by 46 this would be something like 150 Marines per ship. I know that these ships have Coast Guard people with special weapons training, etc, but to put 150 extra troops on each ship? The whole thing sounds fishy. I would be nice to get a good reliable story from a good reliable source.

 

In conclusion (thank God, you will say) I think it is a disservice to our military to think that the ONLY thing that men (and women) on shore leave would be interested in are bars and brothels. There will be that, for sure, but I feel certain that the shore leave folks will be happy to enjoy all that Costa Rica has to offer - other than bars and brothels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me an outlier, but I have joined the Tico opposition on this one. Granted, without any new material development I doubt that the opposition will prevail, and arguably it shouldn't. Surely it's no big deal to have the war ships go from international to CR waters and let some soldiers off for a good drunk and some whores.

 

The issue though is the slippery slope. You all act like the US military has always been friendly to and respectful of CR's pacifism. Not true. Arias had to kick the US military out of CR during the 1980s against White House threats and insults. Actually, Arias was brave, and risked a lot. Well, sure, the US doesn't seem today to have any intention of establishing bases in CR. However, it really is opposed to Nicaragua, has been a little glib about the Honduran coup, and this whole Plan Colombia thing does involve some saber rattling against Venezuela. And let's not forget that the US invaded Panama in 1989-1990. Clearly the US has military interests in the region, and has tried to use CR for these purposes in the not-too-distant past. So sure, some soldiers on furlough hardly mean a military base, but in the hullabaloo who is going to know? It wasn't as if the US asked permission the last time it had bases in CR.

 

My view is that CR should draw the line in the sand now, before it becomes a problem. It sounds harsh, and maybe is, but history teaches better sooner than later.

 

And, as the opposition points out, of what possible value to CR is the US's "war on drugs"? The country has been warmongering on this for decades and the drug problem has only gotten worse. More innocents are killed today than ever before. Obviously the problem is that the US refuses to deal with its demand problem and instead prefers to attack the supply side in Latin America. Well, this US military strategy is a complete and utter failure. Why the hell would CR welcome the failures to shore?

 

I wouldn't. I would say, "Thank you very much for all your help, and you are welcome to visit at tourists, but please, we don't want your military. We are a pacifist country and want to keep it at that. Fair?"

 

And personally I would specifically turn away that damn medical ship. So let's get this straight: The US wants to send a Navy ship to CR to provide free health care to the poor CR peasants? Well, get this: CR already has a health care system that rivals the US's in outcomes, and if the US Navy wanted to supply free health care to people who need it they might go to Detroit. (I think there is even a Great Lake nearby.) The ONLY REASON the ship is coming here is to provide advertising for the US military, trying to persuade the natives that the US military is actually humanitarian rather than, hey, a military.

 

Well, gringos, note this is where your tax dollars are going. A damn ship of military medical personnel wants to stop in CR and provide free health care, even though that already exists in CR, and then of course the ship will leave with no follow-up care. Meanwhile, poor suckers in Detroit and Birmingham get none. And somehow the US has money for 46 war ships to maybe dock in CR for R&R. Last I heard the country was "bogged down" in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hmmm, but there are 46 MORE war ships floating around for a "war on drugs"? It would appear that the US is a bit of a militaristic empire, wouldn't you say? This is a lot of ships to have left over, and last I heard there was some stink in Japan about the US soldiers there too--which is not to mention Korea and Europe and Africa and so forth. Now, what part of "empire" is not understood?

 

Personally, I would tell the US politely that I prefer not to have their soldiers in CR. It's safer for CR this way. Sure, it's probably nothing, but this is a dangerous bunch to welcome and the US military doesn't have such a great track record here. I mean, despite what gringos tell themselves, name one time that the US military has ever helped CR. Right, you can't do it, because there hasn't been one time. The US military has been a problem for CR, but never once helped. In dunno, if I were Tico I would say you are not very well ay "no thanks," politely of course!

really spent any time in the USA Military would know that

Kenn, Appatently you were a draft dodger back in the 60s. Because any person that really spent any time in the USA Military would know that

you are not overly informed in the acts of the USCG. I spent over 20 years there and was involved in the Cuban Muriel boat exeduses, Teaching the Bahama and Puerto Rico Coast Guards how to make boat stops and drug seizures and arrests of all persons on the boat. And if you that the drug cartels are not a problem here in Costa Rica either you do not live here or you do not read the paper nor watch the Tico news. Ron USCG Ret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider Coast Guard vessels "warships."

 

I had read/heard that there would be actual Navy "warships" but perhaps this is not accurate. Based on everything that is going on in the US, I couldn't imagine sending this kind of "fleet" to be on duty for six months off the coasts of Costa Rica - but - stranger things have happened. If these are indeed Coast Guard ships and they will be more or less "cycling" through the areas, I cannot imagine how this story got so blown out of proportion/screwed up. It is not any kind of "invasion force" but just a beefing up of the usual drug interdiction by the US Coast Guard.

 

And now, for those 7,000 Marines ... Is this even accurate? If you divide the 7,000 by 46 this would be something like 150 Marines per ship. I know that these ships have Coast Guard people with special weapons training, etc, but to put 150 extra troops on each ship? The whole thing sounds fishy. I would be nice to get a good reliable story from a good reliable source.

 

In conclusion (thank God, you will say) I think it is a disservice to our military to think that the ONLY thing that men (and women) on shore leave would be interested in are bars and brothels. There will be that, for sure, but I feel certain that the shore leave folks will be happy to enjoy all that Costa Rica has to offer - other than bars and brothels.

Hi I know that as far as the Marines they have no authority to make any arrests, and Navy Personal have no authority to make arrests. ONLY the Coast Guard has that authority and that is also valid in International waters. As for the press release about Marines some press tends to link ALL military to the Marines. Another fact that I was originally involved with is the Navy Ships only act as a platform for the USCG Boarding Parties who actually do all the boarding and arrests. And last I heard that has not changed in the past 34 years since I was involved in using the Navy, also I was involved in startup of the Drug Task Force out of Maimai and involved the DEA, FBI, ATF, US Customs Patrol, and the Coast Guard. And many times the Coast guard does go out and stay out for up to 6 months out at a time except for brief port calls for supplies and the good R and R. Ron USCG Ret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People love to brag about Costa Rica as being a peace loving country, having no standing army since 1948. I argue it has a de facto military. Who ya gonna call next time Costa Rica? Ghost Busters or the U.S. military, again?!!! Grow up get real, and get off your so called peace loving high horses all you U.S. protesters. Who needs an expensive military of your own when you have the best in the world in your hip pocket for free? You protest against the U.S. and its military on the one hand and come crying to Uncle Sam for financial aid and military support on the other. So quit the hypocrisy already!! After the revolution of 48, the U.S. bailed Costa Rica out financially from its decade long economic slump. And who backed up your revolutionary hero, Figueres, who you still hold in high regard today? The U.S., that's who. So put up or shut up. Either pay your own way financially and defend yourself against all enemies foreign and domestic and retain bragging rights. Or continue to accept financial and military assistance and shut up about it already!!!!!!!!!

...

 

 

As the author of the above I have to admit to everyone that it is 50% hyperbole. It was written to highlight the hypocrisy of the bloggers'/protesters' position on other outlets rather than to criticize their right to protest. The U.S. is indirectly responsible for Costa Rica enjoying to this day a state with no army! I just find that so ironic and humorous in the present context of anti U.S. sentiment.

 

A question was raised in an earlier post as to the nature of the visit and character/type of ships. Below are two references addressing the above. I've also included the letter from the U.S. Embassy debated in the Costa Rican legislature which includes a list of ships. To break the code: USS is a U.S. navy war ship, USNS is a civilian ship owned by the U.S. Navy and crewed by both civilians and navy personnel, USCG is a Coast Guard ship (I don't see any on this list). And to clear up the confusion on the "marines" the Spanish word for sailor is "marinaro". They don't really have a word for what we know as a marine which is a service member in our U.S. Marine Corps. So the term crew members gets translated to tripulantes and then gets further mistranslated to marines. Bottom line: we will have both sailors (civilian, navy, and maybe coastguardsmen on navy ships) and marines from the Marine Corps (on navy ships) enjoying some shore leave in Costa Rica. Although the ships are not Coast Guard ships as you can see, they will be under the authority of the Coast Guard which has added to the confusion and controversy. On another list (which I am currently searching for) I thought I also saw a list of Coast Guard ships as well; but I'm not sure about that now.

 

 

 

 

La Embajada de los Estados Unidos de América presenta sus saludos al

 

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la República de Costa Rica y desea

 

informar sobre la posible llegada de varios buques de la Marina los Estados

 

Unidos de América durante el período comprendido entre el 1 de Julio del 2010

 

al 30 de junio del 2011, de conformidad con el Protocolo de Actuación para el

 

Trámite y Ejecución de Solicitudes de Atraque y Permanencia en Puertos

 

Costarricenses de Embarcaciones del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos que

 

Participan en Operaciones Derivadas del Acuerdo de Patrullaje Conjunto.

 

Un informe sobre los resultados operacionales de las embarcaciones de los

 

Estados Unidos para el cumplimiento de la ley que visitaron puertos

 

costarricenses desde el 1 de enero hasta el 30 de mayo del 2010 se ha incluido

 

como Anexo A.

 

Las siguientes embarcaciones de la Marina de los Estados Unidos, todas con

 

equipos del Guardacostas de los Estados Unidos para el cumplimiento de la ley,

 

forman parte de los buques para el cumplimiento de la ley que están

 

programados para operar en o cerca de la zona económica exclusiva de Costa

 

Rica en los Océanos Pacífico y Atlántico y que desean realizar visitas a puertos

 

costarricenses de ser necesario, en apoyo a operaciones antidrogas en el

 

cumplimiento del acuerdo marítimo bilateral durante el período mencionado

 

anteriormente.

 

La Embajada desea señalar que no todas las embarcaciones indicadas visitarán

 

Costa Rica, solamente lo harán aquellas que necesitan hacer visitas cortas.

 

1) USS BOONE (FFG 28)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros SH-60B.

 

2) USS CARR (FFG 52)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros SH-60B.

 

3) USS CROMMELIN (FFG 37)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros SH-60B.

 

4) USS CURTS (FFG 38)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

5) USS DE WERT (FFG 45)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

6) USS DOYLE (FFG 39)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

ACTA N.º 39 DE 1-7-2010

 

ÁREA DE ACTAS, SONIDO Y GRABACIÓN

 

39

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

7) USS FORD (FFG 54)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

8) USS GARY (FFG 51)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

9) USS HAL YBURTON (FFG 40)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

10) USS HA WES (FFG 53)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

11) USS JARRETT (FFG 33)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

12) USS JOHN L. HALL (FFG 32)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

13) USS INGRAHAM (FFG61)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

14) USS KAUFFMAN (FFG 59)

 

Longitud: enlistados. 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

15) USS KLAKRING (FFG 42)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

16) USS MCCLUSKY (FFG 41)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

17) USS MCINERNEY (FFG 8)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

18) USS NICHOLAS (FFG 47)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronave s a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

19) USS RENTZ(FFG 46)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

20) USS ROBERT G. BRADLEY (FFG 49)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

ACTA N.º 39 DE 1-7-2010

 

ÁREA DE ACTAS, SONIDO Y GRABACIÓN

 

40

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

21) USS RODNEY M. DAVIS (FFG 60)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

22) USS RUBEN JAMES (FFG 57)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

23) USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (FFG 58)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B

 

24) USS SIMPSON (FFG 56)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B

 

25) USS STEPHEN W. GROVES (FFG 29)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B

 

26) USS TAYLOR (FFG 50)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B

 

27) USS UNDERWOOD (FFG 36)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B

 

28) USS THA TCH (FFG 43)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

29) USS VANDERGRlFT(FFG 48)

 

Longitud: 135 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 200 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60B.

 

30) USS SWIFT (HSV 2)

 

Longitud: 98 metros. Tripulación máxima: 15 oficiales, 134 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves a bordo: (2) Helicópteros SH-60B.

 

31) USNS SATURN (T AFS 10) - Embarcación de suministros.

 

Longitud: 160 metros. Tripulación máxima: 10 oficiales, 39 enlistados y 115

 

civiles. Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: (2) Helicópteros CH-46

 

32) USS SUMNER (T-AGS-61)- Embarcación de reconocimiento

 

Longitud: 101 metros. Tripulación máxima: 5 oficiales, 22 enlistados y 27 civiles.

 

Embarcación artillada. No aeronaves abordo.

 

33) USNS COMFORT (T-AH-20) - Embarcación tipo hospital

 

Longitud: 270 metros. Tripulación máxima: 110 oficiales, 710 enlistados y 73

 

civiles. Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: No aeronaves abordo.

 

34) USNS ROBERT E. PEARY (T-AKE-5)

 

Longitud: 210 metros. Tripulación máxima: 49 oficiales, 197 enlistados.

 

ACTA N.º 39 DE 1-7-2010

 

ÁREA DE ACTAS, SONIDO Y GRABACIÓN

 

41

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: (2) Helicópteros MH-60.

 

35) USS FREEDOM (LCS-l)

 

Longitud: 115 metros. Tripulación máxima: 16 oficiales, 60 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: (2) Helicópteros MH-60R.

 

36) USS INDEPENDENCE (LCS-2)

 

Longitud: 127 metros. Tripulación máxima: 8 oficiales, 32 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: (2) Helicópteros MH-60R.

 

37) USS CHAMPION (MCM-4)

 

Longitud: 68 metros. Tripulación máxima: 6 oficiales, 75 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. No Aeronaves abordo.

 

38) USS PIONEER (MCM-9)

 

Longitud: 68 metros. Tripulación máxima: 6 oficiales, 75 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. No Aeronaves abordo.

 

39) USS SENTRY (MCM-3)

 

Longitud: 68 metros. Tripulación máxima: 6 oficiales, 75 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. No Aeronaves abordo.

 

40) USS DEVASTATOR

 

Longitud: 68 metros. Tripulación máxima: 6 oficiales, 75 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. No Aeronaves abordo.

 

41) USS KEARSARGE (LHD-3)

 

Longitud: 257 metros. Tripulación máxima: 104 oficiales, 1,004 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: (42) Helicópteros CH-46, (5) Aviones

 

A V-8B Harrier y (6) Helicópteros HH-60 Blackhawks.

 

42) USS MAKIN ISLAND

 

Longitud: 258 metros. Tripulación máxima: 102 oficiales, 1,449 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: (42) Helicópteros CH-46, (5) A V-8B

 

Harrier y (6) Helicópteros HH-60 Black.hawks.

 

43) USS WALLY SCHIRRA (T-AKE-8)

 

Longitud: 210 metros. Tripulación máxima: 8 oficiales, 42 enlistados y 123

 

civiles. Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: (2) Helicópteros HH-60

 

Blackhawks.

 

44) USS IWO JIMA (LHD-7)

 

Longitud: 257 metros. Tripulación máxima: 73 oficiales, 1,109 enlistados.

 

Embarcación artillada. Aeronaves abordo: (10) Helicópteros CH-46, (5) y (6)

 

Helicópteros HH-60 Blackhawks.

 

45) USS COMFOR

 

Longitud: 272 metros. Tripulación máxima: 104 oficiales, 1,104 enlistados.

 

Embarcación no artillada. No aeronaves abordo.

 

46) USS ELROD

 

Longitud: 138 metros. Tripulación máxima: 21 oficiales, 205 enlistados. (2)

 

Helicópteros SH-60 B LAMPS III

 

La Embajada desea proponer que el personal de las Fuerzas Armadas,

 

inclusive los miembros del Servicio de Guardacostas de los Estados Unidos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Iwo Jima which I notice is number 44 on the list posted earlier has just deployed on a humanitarian mission to Costa Rica and the region.

 

 

 

 

 

"USS Iwo Jima deploys in support of Continuing Promise

 

Posted On: Jul 13 2010 12:29PM

 

USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) departed Naval Station Norfolk July 12 in support of Continuing Promise 2010 (CP10).

 

Continuing Promise is an annual humanitarian civic assistance operation that provides opportunities to establish new partnerships with other nations, non-government organizations (NGOs), international government organizations and learn from host nations and civilian experts.

 

During the scheduled four-month surge, relief operations will be conducted in Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Panama and Suriname.

 

CP10 is a U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) directed operation implemented by U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command and U.S. 4th Fleet (COMUSNAVSO/C4F).

 

There are more than 1,600 Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, Airmen and civilians including Commander Amphibious Squadron 6, Fleet Surgical Team 2, Navy Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit (CBMU) 202, Maritime Civil Affairs Team 206, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force (SPMAGTF), CLR-25 Medical Detachment and contingents of medical personnel from the armed forces of The Netherlands, Canada and Germany and various other satellite commands embarked on board Iwo Jima. ..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been giving this whole thing some thought and it reminds me a lot of a little terrier dog friend of mine who runs with "the big dogs" and manages to get her share of attention or stay out of the way in a fight. Costa Rica is a lot like that.

 

I was talking to a Peace Corps volunteer recently and when I remarked that I was surprised to see the Peace Corps in Costa Rica since they usually work in less developed countries. (Apparently their mission here is micro-economics and helping small businesses or local organizations.) She was told that the Peace Corps had considered pulling out of Costa Rica but the Costa Rican government asked them to stay. I think this is really smart! Rather than use CR resources to do this work, use the Peace Corps. Local people will take what good they can out of a project like this and let go of the rest. I have seen a couple of things going on in my area: one Peace Corps volunteer helped a ladies' organization open a small soda and set up a business making cookies and similar things for sale in stores. Another Peace Corps volunteer is teaching English in a rural elementary school that does not currently have an English teacher (among other things). Just two examples of some good things that the Costa Rican government doesn't have to do. It's kind of like when I was painting houses. Sometimes I would hire a helper and he would usually want to carry the ladder and the 5-gallon buckets of paint. Of course, I usually did this myself, but was not insulted and just happy not to have to schlep the stuff.

 

Perhaps we can look on the Iwo Jima the same way. They can do some good for some people without stretching the health services of the CR govt. There are other projects scheduled also. I have found that many Costa Ricans will listen politely to what you are saying or participate in what you are offering and then do exactly as they wish and what "fits." Perhaps this will be the case here.

 

If I am a poor woman with children (been there) and someone wants to come and give them some dental work and free medical care - and - I don't have to travel 6 hours to get it? I would be happy. Would I then get on the political bandwagon thinking the US is the greatest? Probably not. I probably wouldn't think in those terms but maybe wonder how long those supplies they gave me would last.

 

Maybe we are politicizing this too much. Maybe it is simpler than we think. Not really sure .........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.