Arab media: 2 Israeli Navy ships passed through Suez Canal

Pound Israel in/to mincemeat?? not likely
Anyone remember the six day war? They annihilated Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. They are the one of THE most sophisticated armored nation in the world. If they are planning attack on ANYONE, you better believe it will succeed. All Israel does is plan to be attacked and to attack. Their entire culture depends on them being more prepared than anyone else. They are surrounded by nations/enemys who want them gone.

reply to post by semperfortis


Ok, now add this to Russia's new nuclear doctrine, China standing up against the US, all leading up to this stuff with Iran, do we not think Russia and China are lining themselves up to side with Iran?

Would the arrogant US/Israel feel Iran was such a pushover then??

Iranian leaders aint stupid, they have allies too, and anyone who thinks this is going to be like Iraq is as stupid as Obama, Iran aint gonna stand alone!!

naaa... think that they heading to the red sea defending Eilat....

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Israel Versus Iran

 

For starters Iran has the capability to shut down the strait of Hormuz, which 20% of the worlds daily oil supply travels through, also the Iranian Revolutionary guards are a far more formidable force than was Saddam Husseins army.

Problems with this:

1. Iran can never match our Naval might, not by .001 percent. We can and we would clear the strait anytime we wish too

Well it's not a walk in the park, the Iranian diesel subs with newly developed Stirling engines could maybe be a great threat to any commercial fleet and/or battle groups in the strait of Hormuz - especially if they are on suicide missions?

Take a look at this article about the super silent Swedish Stirling sub and crew from the Swedish Navy which the US Navy hired for two years to act as the enemy.

US Navy to continue hunt for Swedish sub

For almost a year the US Navy has been hunting a Swedish submarine, the HMS Gotland, off America's west coast.

The hunt is, of course, a one year training programme - but the Americans now want to extend the contract with the Swedish Navy.

Time after time, as part of the Americans' training in tracking down smaller vessels, the Swedish submarine and its crew have eluded their pursuers.

The programme started last summer but the US Navy has said that it would like to hire the Swedish submarine and crew for another year, reported the newspaper Blekinge Läns Tidning.

That is good news as far as the Swedish submarine flotilla is concerned, and it has already requested the government's permission to continue.

"Both the Americans and ourselves are interested in a continuation," said Jens Plambeck, chief of staff at the First Submarine Flotilla in Karlskrona.

The key to the HMS Gotland's success is the Stirling engines which allow the submarine to remain underwater for a unusually long time.

www.thelocal.se...

www.news.navy.mil...


I don't know if Iran have similar subs yet? but this video could maybe be of interest?




Well I found this from 2008 & 2009:

New Iran claim: Unmanned 'smart' stealth sub

NICOSIA — Iran has reported the development of an unmanned submarine that would be deployed in the Gulf.

Officials said the unmanned underwater vessel was a stealth platform that could infiltrate enemy defenses.

Iran has sought to enhance its naval capabilities to defeat any U.S. attack in the Gulf. Teheran has also reported the development of a torpedo with a range of 300 kilometers, Middle East Newsline reported.

The vessel would enhance the Iran Navy's defensive capabilities," Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Najar said.

www.worldtribune.com...

Iran subs get boost from North Korea

U.S. Navy confirms rogue nation working on underwater stealth technology

The U.S. Navy, worried by Iran's increasing underwater capability, has revealed for the first time that the rogue nation has acquired its submarine technology largely from North Korea, which has provided both mini-submarines and manufacturing know-how, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The revelation comes as the Office of Naval Intelligence, or ONI, recently released its latest report on Iran's conventional navy, with the observation that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, is working on programs to achieve an underwater stealth capability.

"Submarines will probably remain a key feature of Iran's naval order of battle," the ONI report said. "Iran is the only country in the Persian Gulf region with submarines, and Iranian naval leaders have stated publicly that they believe submarines are a better value than other weapons systems."

www.wnd.com...



[edit on 7-2-2010 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by semperfortis


I must disagree with you on what you call the logistics of an attack against Iran.
Pictures are often worth 1,000 words.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f06bf0a255a6.jpg[/atsimg]

While I agree that the Iranian Navy would be quickly overwhelmed, I think you will find that any sort of ground invasion of Iran would be very difficult to accomplish indeed.
The comparison between Iran and Iraq is almost laughable when factoring terrain.
There is a reason why Iran has never been conquered. It is surrounded by mountains. On all sides.
Nope, there won't be a column of tanks storming through the middle of the country like we did in Iraq.
And if the Iran Iraq war can indicate what you would face, you will be confronted with wave after wave of *children* armed with bibles. Eventually you grow tired of slaughtering children and just sorta' quit.

reply to post by Israel Versus Iran


Do you realize how many times this has happened since 2006

2nd line

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Rentor]

reply to post by semperfortis


I suppose they would rush to you with flowers and thank you for liberating them....oh wait that was Iraq.

For all their millitary power, the US can do nothing to simple famers and civillians in afganistan, the trillion dollar amy is having such a hard time with them i wouldn't open that fly trap so fast, you never can tell. Just as you say the saddams guards gave up, but did they really or did the plan unfold exactly as they wanted, the US storms into empty towns for the whole gerilla movement is to fight close quarters where bombs and air might cannot reach.

If the US was so mighty wouldn't they have destroyed the movement? The Russians had more people there and they were a hardier, and tougher breed of soldier. The british had to leave, and now the US will pay them to stop fighting, so i would count those eggs just yet.

I hear all the time how cowardly it is to set up IED's or blow themselves up, but the most cowardly fight is from the unmanned drones, people with sticks and rock will find a way to get even, against jets and tanks.

Im so tired of the US and Israel being the new Nazi's

reply to post by Rentor


Yep, the article itself says it happened during the summer. Mountains out of molehills. Can we call off the war now?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by antonia]

If there is an attack it may be a short one. I don’t think Iran has the backing they once had in the middle east, also Lebanon, I believe want’s Hezbollah out as much as Israel.

I am also sick of war and do not want to see another,but I also see no need to occupy Iran. A combination of strikes on their military sites and leadership targets followed up by a blockade of goods going in and out should be good enough. The people of Iran are not to blame for this mess.

Iran ups enrichment to 20%

Do you know it only takes 20% enrichment to make a usable nuclear weapon. The Israeli ship movements come after as Iran president stated this. I take back what i said earlier...something is gonna happen...so thats why Israel and U.S. been putting important weapon assets everywhere.

Enriched uranium only needs to be 20% to make a small nuclear weapon.

Also it wouldn't take long for Iran to mount a nuclear device on a rocket...not long ago, they sent some animals into space.

reply to post by antonia


Are you saying that the article in the OP is from the summer time? That's not true, it's from yesterday, February 6, 2010. The only time it mentions Israeli ships and the summer is from this sentence here:

According to the reports, one Israeli missile boat already passed through the Suez Canal in June and July of last year. In one case, the Israeli ship was said to have been accompanied by an Israeli submarine.

So last summer, one Israeli missile boat (and a submarine according to some reports) passed through the Suez canal. But the other day two more Israeli ships passed through the Suez Canal, bringing the total of Israeli ships that will possibly be in the Persian Gulf to four.

reply to post by Rentor


You took the words right out of my mouth. My biggest fear is not that Israel will strike Iran it is if Israel does not strike Iran.

Is it me or is this similar to "Count down to looking glass" not the exact but similar The strait of houmuz will be the choke point if it gets blocked then who knows were this will land the world.


video.google.com...#

reply to post by Israel Versus Iran


"Syria vows to respond to any Israeli 'aggression'"

I love the empty threat.

Where was this so called response when Israel bombed Syria itself?

So now we are supposed to believe they will respond to aggression against Lebanon when they didn't even respond to an attack on their own soil?

I bet Israel is really scared.

16th July 2009

Correspondents say that although Israel vessels regularly use the canal, the recent moves have - unusually - been publicised by the Israelis.

Israel have shown this type of "military muscle" previously.

Unless of course this is the same 2 ships and they are really just 2 Israeli
rowing boats that have been sent to take down Iran?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Georgehairybush]

Prophetically, this is the buildup to the formation of the Arab Confederation which will usher in the antichrist/mahdi who will bring peace for 3&1/2 years, until war breaks out for real. Russia and China won't be directly involved until that final conflict.

Originally posted by humilisunus
reply to post by semperfortis

 

I suppose they would rush to you with flowers and thank you for liberating them....oh wait that was Iraq.


For all their millitary power, the US can do nothing to simple famers and civillians in afganistan, the trillion dollar amy is having such a hard time with them i wouldn't open that fly trap so fast, you never can tell. Just as you say the saddams guards gave up, but did they really or did the plan unfold exactly as they wanted, the US storms into empty towns for the whole gerilla movement is to fight close quarters where bombs and air might cannot reach.

The invading US force was in no shape to occupy the country, the force was two small. Former Army Chief of Staff, General David Shinseki, told his masters in the former administration just that, but he was marginalized for it and forced into obscurity until retirement. Here is a clip were he tells such before a congressional hearing in 2003.



Then the Coalition Provisional Authority made serious blunders for enacting the policy of "de-Baathification," following the invasion. They had run many of institutions of Iraq for over 30 years and were more than capable of assisting in how to effectively smooth over government changes post Saddam. These individuals could have been vetted for any wrong doing as officials in the government under Saddam, and if criminal acts were discovered, they would have been disqualified. These former officials knew the pulse and inner-workings of Iraqi society far better than the US, and could have been great consultants in how to get the country back on its feet with the least amount of blood shed possible.



Then, the former Iraqi Army could have been re-armed and called up to assist the foreign forces in stabilization efforts. It is widely known that they would have assisted in getting their country under control. However, they were disregarded by the infinite wisdom from the former administration, for what apparent reason: only they know?



So, as a result of the perceived slight by the foreign occupation, it led them to form an insurgency and fostered doubt in them about the true intentions for the future of Iraq by the US. The military adventure was doomed to be a disaster at the very onset. Military planners and civilian leadership, before and after the invasion consulted their political counterparts in an objective manner about what to do; and they were marginalized for speaking contrary to their grand vision for Iraq.

If the US was so mighty wouldn't they have destroyed the movement? The Russians had more people there and they were a hardier, and tougher breed of soldier. The british had to leave, and now the US will pay them to stop fighting, so i would count those eggs just yet.

I hear all the time how cowardly it is to set up IED's or blow themselves up, but the most cowardly fight is from the unmanned drones, people with sticks and rock will find a way to get even, against jets and tanks.

Now, I think you are loosely alluding to the effort in Afghanistan. First, the only reason there are problems there now, is the simple fact that for years after 2001 efforts there were essentially stalled for the Iraq War. This time would prove very costly, because quality of life for regular Afghans continued to be as it was under the Taliban, corruption in the Karzai government was allowed to run rampant and virtually unchallenged by the US, then agricultural initiatives were largely left off the table to teach Afghan other methods of farming other than illegal agriculture which is now funding the Taliban.

So, the US's lack of interest in Afghanistan to focus efforts on Iraq has cost them dearly, and are now having to deal with a re-emerging Taliban and general distaste among the people with the US effort and US backed Afghan government. Now, the current administration has to back track and try to salvage whatever they can from all those wasted years. It may be too late. However, the US could have successfully handled both conflicts as they had done before if it hadn't gone political like wars of the past. So, the reasons mentioned above is what has contributed to the distaste among the people caught up in both conflicts, and rightfully so. To put it simply, the peoples' interests have been perceived to be put on the back burner for other things, what they are; only the military and politicians know that? So, they are upset and forming insurgencies to counter the foreign forces. No one likes to be pawns, regardless of what country you claim.

Im so tired of the US and Israel being the new Nazi's

Calling the US and Israel the new Nazis is quite a stretch and delusional at the very least. Have they made mistakes, yes of course! But I have yet to see on the news wanton death, destruction, and carnage by both sides in whatever military adventure they are participating. Now, you know in any conflict collateral damage is a given, and that is what I am seeing. However, I have not seen the mass murder by either side as was seen when the Nazis were in power. So, when people claim the US and Israel are the new Nazis I find it somewhat misinformed and short-sighted. Yes, both have been involved in unpopular wars, and civilians have died; but to go as far as to crop them with genocidal mass murderers is almost laughable. However, if you feel that way to each their own I guess?



[edit on 7-2-2010 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by Jakes51 So, when people claim the US and Israel are the new Nazis I find it somewhat misinformed and short-sighted. Yes, both have been involved in unpopular wars, and civilians have died; but to go as far as to crop them with genocidal mass murderers is almost laughable. However, if you feel that way to each their own I guess?

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Jakes51]

Misinformed ?

Please inform us, because I kinda agree with the Nazi thing.

Why are 750,000 + Iraqies dead now , 1000+ Gazians ?

Because they hate our freedom's ?

Because 911 attacks?

The two countries behind 911 were Saudi Arabia , Pakistan

Please inform me sir.

reply to post by Sean48


Exactly it was KSA and Pakistan, and the only reason we would NEVER attack either of them is oil and nuclear missiles respectively. We will however indirectly attack Pakistan like we are doing now.