Arab media: 2 Israeli Navy ships passed through Suez Canal

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass_Eyed_Max

First of all , Israel doesn't care about the US being stretched thinly.







She , the reporter has been trained perfectly.

Notice how she jumped right on the anti-semite card.

American's are owned , and have no clue.




posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 


The truth is that war in that region is inevitable. These are simply the warning signs. It is only a matter of time. The only prevention is in the minds of the people at the tables, but there is no doubt that conflict will come, and that is only a matter of when...



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I just wish Iran / America and israel would just shut the hell up and let everyone else have some god damn peace.

Bloody war mongering idiots.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiteraryOneTwo


The truth is that war in that region is inevitable. These are simply the warning signs. It is only a matter of time. The only prevention is in the minds of the people at the tables, but there is no doubt that conflict will come, and that is only a matter of when...


I agree , its going to happen.

But this will be the third war in a row , that American Troops will have no

idea why they are there .



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I just want to point some things:

- If I´m right US sended/sending more troops to afghanistan.
I dont know the numbers exactly but something about 30,000 more soldiers?
- Why? Was there any real reason for this??
- In January Taliban began to surrender.
- US has also some forces in Pakistan.
- Afghanistan along with Pakistan are best places for start of land invasion into Iran.

I don´t believe that US needs 70k troops in afghanistan just for "fight against terror".
Just one look at map and it´s obvious. Iran will be invaded even if Iran will be nicest and peacefullest country in the world, which isn´t. They will find some reason to invade it.
Now it´s their nuclear program.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
So many feelings of deja-vou with these threads repeating. I have some concerns based on the following.....

If its correct that the US military is overstretched at the moment and a war in Iran would be the straw that broke the camels back regarding American military man power, surely the option of a quick war is inevitable if troop numbers cant be maintained?

With the above in mind, I suggest that maybe nukes could be the first option. To make this option feasable and justified in the eyes of the world there has to be an action that can be blamed on Iran. An action so barbaric and evil that the world would deem it justified to use nuclear weapons.

Now this could be a false flag instigated by or on Israel with the perpetrators disguised as Iranians, or, it could be some cataclismic attack on an American or even European city.

Iether way there has to be something more than the veiled threat of Iran ever having nuclear capabilities that can be used as the fuse to ignite what could become WW3.

By the way, Im not a doom and gloom merchant, although it may read like that....honestly



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mrpotatohead
 



If there is a-n-y kind of battle, get ready for $6-$7 a gallon gas. it will happen over night

Ha ha, it's already $10 gallon here in the UK, don't rub it in you lucky sods!



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zmurfix
 
It's not just about sending more troops, there is a high-level push by NATO in southern Afghanistan right now, and today were were told the bad news in advance from the British foreign secretary,"People are going to get hurt" so it's big stuff. In the meanwhile the Israelis are tippy-toeing down through Suez, most likely heading for the same coastline.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Unless there is a collective yell from the "peanut gallery", more war is inevitable. Our sons and daugthers, friends and neighbors, all the youth (and future) of this nation being stolen unless they are "priviliged".
What happened to the people who are tired of war, the ones that elected the great "Nobel Peace Prize Winner" as president? Where are you? I'm not a liberal, but Libertarian because of the bought & paid for two party political system. War for money's sake is immoral, to put it politely.
Eisenhower said it best:



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 


A false flag to kick the war off? I sure would hate to see another 9-11. That was super sad and tragic. But I guess it's all water under the bridge now.

These people shouldn't be so easy to jump into another war. The sun is heating up again, the table is being set, what's for dinner? Shake and bake.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Like as I stated on page 3 on the thread. Iran president gave the okay to enrich the uranium to 20%. That's enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb the size of little boy. It would take three to four weeks to enrich it to 20%. Let's don't forget, Iran is not North Korea. Iran actually has the technology to mount a nuclear device. Iran could very well have a nuclear weapon by earliest next month. If Israel or U.S. doesn't want to have a Nuclear armed Iran. They would have to attack this month. Whoever said War with Iran will be in February may very will be CORRECT.

Its probably the reason why the huge build up of warships and missiles etc. started at the end of January. I hoped I am wrong though


EDIT TO ADD Little boy killed over 140,000, when it was dropped. Small nuclear arm is still very deadly.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Rentor]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rentor
Like as I stated on page 3 on the thread. Iran president gave the okay to enrich the uranium to 20%. That's enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb the size of little boy. It would take three to four weeks to enrich it to 20%. Let's don't forget, Iran is not North Korea. Iran actually has the technology to mount a nuclear device. Iran could very well have a nuclear weapon by earliest next month. If Israel or U.S. doesn't want to have a Nuclear armed Iran. They would have to attack this month. Whoever said War with Iran will be in February may very will be CORRECT.

Its probably the reason why the huge build up of warships and missiles etc. started at the end of January. I hoped I am wrong though


Well hope that Iran actually has one and announces it. Nobody but a rogue nation will start a nuclear war, not even Israel.

No country in the world would stand for that sort of immoral and irresponsible behaviour.

A nuke is a trump card, just so that Iran can tell the rest of the world to F-Off..

~Keeper



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Chevalerous
 


It's just these types of new tech that I try to explain to the "die hard" (and they will) US loyalists, they maybe the largest but by no means the best military in the world, and that wonderful Carrier group does you NO good at the bottom of the ocean.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
For me there are 4 scenarios:

1- There will be no war because the Iran government will be overthrown.

2- Israel and the States attack the nuclear installations. Iran does not make any military response, only making some form of protest. This is for me the most likely scenario.

3- Israel and the States attack. Iran retaliates. Now many things can happen… If Iran retaliates alone with the Iranian public opinion supporting the war we can be facing a long war, with a lot of casualties for both sides. Invasion is inevitable and the States will try to gain Nato support (European countries will no go to this war) or gain the support of some Arabian countries. Iran will most likely have the military support of the Hezzbolah, Lebanon, Palestine , terrorists groups and economic support of the North Korea. There will be no WW III because Russia and China have much to lose.

4- Iran retaliates but the Iranian government is overthrown due to the Irania opposition. In this case we have a very short war



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
All this happening during Superbowl weekend no less, nice distraction.

I certainly hope that this is just more posturing on the part of Israel and that we are allowing our paranoia to get the best of us, but I am not so sure. Time will tell.

Have any mainstream media outlets picked this up yet



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Rentor
 
It would be foolish for America to pre-empt any possible attack by Iran, which if happened, would be against anywhere except America, and if Iran were to attack another country, the rest of their neighbours would not be too happy. There would probably an internal uprising against the Iranian government as well.



[edit on 7-2-2010 by smurfy]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Rentor
 




Like as I stated on page 3 on the thread. Iran president gave the okay to enrich the uranium to 20%. That's enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb the size of little boy. It would take three to four weeks to enrich it to 20%.


Sir, please do a little more research before stirring the WWIII pot. 20% Uranium enrichment is enough for a "light water reactor" i.e. power plant generation. It is enough for a "dirty bomb", not a "nuclear bomb". Not enough for the destructive power at Hiroshima that you invoked. Please speak about what you know when such important things are at hand.



The core of Little Boy contained 64 kg of uranium, of which 50 kg was enriched to 89%, and the remaining 14 kg at 50%. With enrichment averaging 80%, it could reach about 2.5 critical masses. "Fat Man" and the Trinity "gadget", by way of comparison, had five critical masses.

Source: Wikipedia

BTW: do you know what Uranium "Enrichment" means? Sorry, because you mentioned quantity, not isotope ratio.



[edit on 7-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Considering the passage of many Western ships and task forces through the Suez raise little or no media attention, I am not going to make a big deal of this situation. The ships in themselves are no threat.

However, Dolphins could have been using these ships as cover to pass through the Suez undetected.

This would improve Israel's strike capability (if they where to strike) perhaps used to strike targets deep in Iran (if they indeed do have cruise missiles capability) while air strikes take out the closer targets, or they could be used as a fall back option should air strikes fail.

But the ships in themselves are of no real consequence..



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakes51
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?

I understand your perception on US wars, but you still need to research more about WWII and German war tactics. Because, you say "I have not seen the mass murder" - I agree, I haven't seen either, but neither did Germans in WWII. If you just start with Wikipedia, you will find out how delusional, brainwashed and hypnotized Germans were by the Nazi party. They knew nothing about the death camps, nothing about false flag operations, nothing about Munich agreement, in fact most were pretty ignorant and uneducated on just about everything except how to make and use a gun. Even today there are groups denying most crimes including the holocaust. When first films about death camps were published by the Russians, US considered it Communist propaganda and dismissed everything, until they've seen a few themselves. You must understand that back then, German forces were not considered Satanic as they are now, not by far – otherwise, they would not have as much allies, WWII was not just about evil “the Nazi” doing evil stuff.

Calling German army genocidal mass murderers was also laughable 70 years ago. I mean, a random German would probably punch you in the face if you told him how Germans kill people with pesticides. People thought Jews were simply moved to another, better place, and that the army was spreading order, peace and justice. Jews had their rights slowly stripped away, and that's not the first time in history. However no one thought they'll end up incinerated in death factories. The sign on the Auschwitz camp doesn’t say “Hi, we torture and then incinerate people here, cuz we’re evil”, it says “Work makes you free”. Most death camps had well maintained and great looking parks with fountains and singing birds with nice looking recreational buildings, the only catch was that first bath in there is your last. The entire point of a death camp is that nobody ever leaves, so that nobody ever tells about it.

Why do U.S. tactics resemble those of WWII Germany? Well, because similarities exist in Gleiwitz incident, Munich agreement, demonization of a major religion and communism, greatest by far military force in the world, fastest developing military technology, military operations across the world and having special military branch for domestic-only operations, poor education system, promotion of eugenics, establishment of a world order and probably more. Now, there’s no nation of saints, I know that, but Nazy-America isn’t just some randomly generated scam – from very educated folk, to people in rural parts of the world generate such ideas.

If I myself had to chose between Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, British Crown or U.S. I’d choose the last one, but sadly, I think all of them were/are minions of the Crown and inter-related, but that’s another story.

So not to brag any more, I cannot stress enough how important is not to dismiss accusations because you haven't seen it yourself.
Again, if you’re busy pouring acid on someone’s face and see a hideous monster passing by, feeling better about your own self makes things even worse for the one you’re busy torturing.



posted on Feb, 7 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I think people are jumping the shark. Although Israel has a history of striking first, in this case it would take something on Iran's part to begin any conflict. The reason why Egypt let their ships through the canal was purely meant as a message to Iran saying this: When forced to pick between Shia (the fundi sort which rule Iran) and Jews, we will pick the Jews. Nothing more and nothing less.





top topics
 
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join