Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Arab media: 2 Israeli Navy ships passed through Suez Canal

page: 10
41
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by rhines
 


I don't really think Israel will attack anyone this year. The last year attack on Gaza brought attention of the world to the genocide being carried out by Israel, I think Israel will stay low for sometime. It's easier to stay away from public attention for Israel to carry out it's apartheid and illegal annexation of land.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by December_Rain]




posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


A Google News duel, a paste and copy operation. This Thursday is the 11th, we will know then ;-)


"Iran is rushing forward to produce nuclear weapons......I believe that what is required right now is tough action by the international community," Netanyahu told European diplomats that dealt only with the Iranian issue. "What is required is a lot more than words." by Benjamin Netanyahu - Ha'aretz
www.haaretz.com...



[edit on 9-2-2010 by rhines]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dramey
just browsing it seems like the argument is who to trust

iran or israel



I'm sure I could produce evidence of attacks, murders, spying and subterfuge by Israel on various western countries, including USA.

But I would struggle to find the same about Iran















[edit on 9-2-2010 by bigyin]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Does anybody know / is there an easy way to find out the up to date situation of how many Warships and from which countries are in the Persian Gulf?

Seem rather odd so many are there and it must be costing the relevant countries a fortune sending / keeping them there so what's the BIG reason for doing so?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by minkey53
Does anybody know / is there an easy way to find out the up to date situation of how many Warships and from which countries are in the Persian Gulf?

Seem rather odd so many are there and it must be costing the relevant countries a fortune sending / keeping them there so what's the BIG reason for doing so?


Peak oil

Peak oil for the 2nd

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/9/2010 by semperfortis]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Peak oil for the 2nd


Not with you, what does that mean as an answer?



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigyin

Originally posted by Dramey
just browsing it seems like the argument is who to trust

iran or israel



I'm sure I could produce evidence of attacks, murders, spying and subterfuge by Israel on various western countries, including USA.

But I would struggle to find the same about Iran




[edit on 9-2-2010 by bigyin]
What are you talking about, Iran government, or Iranians? The Iranian people are just like all other people, any differences are in culture and beliefs and a way of life, all of which are subject to change like it or not for some. The Iranian government on the other hand have agendas, and also fundamental beliefs, which will not always serve all of their citizens. The Iran government supply arms to the Taliban and maybe others. That is a reality, the fact that signing up against anything nuclear is just a load of bully, may make no difference in the long run, and only takes away from the fact that 20th century "conventional" weapons have probaby killed more people in stupid war, than have people ever existed. BTW, why are there people on the streets in Iran, in protest of having not been paid, while the government of Iran is busy doleing out arms to the Taliban, and paying out for nuclear fuzzy stuff. The Iran government is just asking for trouble, not the people that live there.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Ask Dramey which he is talking about and we can go from there.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


1. They don't need to. That would only be important if Iran had to control a vast ocean territory, which, they don't.

And actually, strategically speaking, the Persian Gulf is a very easy to defend and attack any ship that is in there. It's the same as a group of troops going through a vale.

2. It's not the same. The Iraqi troops were overrated and the reports about their numbers were a bit too high. In the first Golf War, they would have caused some problems if the war continued. In this recent Iraq war...well....there was no Iraq army.

Iran's force is way better than the Iraq army. Plus, the Iraq didn't had the aid of other countries. It was alone against the West. Iran isn't, at all.

They just need China and Russia (let alone the others) to give a kiss-kiss to them, and the US and Israel are in deep manure.


Don't think that the technology and the "oh we are mighty" factor will help the US. History has proven many times before that technology is only a tool, not a decisive factor. And you need to know how to use it, and Iraq/Afghanistan shows that the US still have a lot to learn from the potential of their "technological advance".

Remember Vietnam? The US had better fighter-jets, the US had better equiped soldiers, the US had everything better.

But a group of well trained soldiers, a large group of farmers with weapons, a small amount of Russian assistance, and very basic tactics (like knowing your territory and hand-made traps) brought the mighty US giant to his knees.

Besides, there are simple ways to go around all that tech, and Iran might just have that.

Yeah, US has a lot of tech, but any person around military knows that the US soldiers are one of the worst in basic combat (except for the special forces like the navy seals).

Cut down their communications, cut down their radio assistance and monitoring, and there goes the mighty power of the US.

The problem with the US is that they are trained as a group, as a whole. To work with technology, to work with ranks, to work with largely known tactics.

Many of the today armies don't work like that. Most of them are guerrilla or very basic forms of units. You can't fight what you can't see, and you can't bring to the grown what you can't squish.

I just hope that the US generals don't have that same line of thinking that high of them-selfs.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


Same applies in Afghanistan, The Russians with superior technology were driven out by the Taliban. CIA supplied the Taliban with SAM's and that helped them a lot, but unless you can win a ground war and occupy the country you are doomed.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Exactly.

Proxy wars can ruin a country's invasion.

Afghanistan is a very good example. The US just gave them a "few" bucks and they sent the "mighty" (back then) russians home.

Imagine if the russians now give a "few" bucks and gear to Iran while the US allied forces start to invade Iran.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Did you all notice the earthquake in Iran today?
Magnitude 4.6 - WESTERN IRAN
2010 February 11 16:29:40 UTC
Small underground nuke test? Someone started a thread about this
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Sounds like it could be a small underground test, after all, did not Iran today declare they were a nuclear state?






top topics



 
41
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join