It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'US deploys troops in Israel for Iran war'

page: 23
140
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by I AM LEGION
 


Who's crying? No one in the world is scared of Iran lol.

I was referring to their military as stone age. Not in a literal sense. Their ships and military equipment are 30-50 years old and they are unable to repair a lot of damaged equipment due to a lack of spare parts.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by I AM LEGION
...US backed dictator Shah who still lives in US under it's protection, who gave US and EU oil on the expense of Iran?


The Shah died in 1980 in Egypt after he abdicated the Peacock Throne in 1979.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Good points but, I did not say they had the right to build it, just that it was none of our business and not our right to dictate policy to them.

I believe that war with Iran will cause bigger problems for us. I am not up to date on everything that is going on over there nor would I claim to be but, it just seems this path of "recreating" the middle east in our image will not yield positive results.

As far as rogue nations... Have North Korea and Pakistan made that list yet? Curious. I would think we would be more concerned about them than a nation living in the stone age. Of course with Iran holding the 3rd? largest oil supply in the world perhaps that is why they want to keep them under control.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by buster2010
 


Sorry, but the waters don't belong to Iran. Last time I checked no one owns the ocean...let alone a waterway used for international oil exports.

And what's your point about Bahrain? We've had presence there for over 60 years.


Again shows your ignorance and lack of complete knowledge. Half of it (Strait of Homez) is owned by Iran, the other half is owned by the United Arab Emerites and Oman. So Iran is completely within it's rights to mine "their" half part which they own.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
****ATTENTION****
If the TOPIC and the TOPIC alone is not discussed, this thread will close and posting bans may be handed out!

Enough of the insults, rants, vents, off topic posts, focus on members and T&C violations.

Your post will be actioned!

Stop it now......or this thread will close and you may find yourself post banned!

FINAL WARNING.

Thank you!


edit on January 6th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by I AM LEGION
 


I assume you mean Hormuz. Really? Because that's news to me. Do you have a source for that information?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by I AM LEGION
 


I said I don't have a religion. That doesn't mean I'm completely clueless and pretend to know something I don't.


I also don't know what the Army does. That's why the Army is fat and we aren't. But good luck with your goal.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Well, I don't know how reliable this source is but it was worth a look as an update to whats going on.

www.guardian.co.uk... iran-us-israel?newsfeed=true

This quote concerns me though:




Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US state department official now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: "I'm not predicting there is going to be a skirmish, but in the absence of established communications, the tensions and the activity raises the possibility of an unintended exchange of fire."


In other words, all heck could break loose because of a misfire....



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by I AM LEGION
 


I assume you mean Hormuz. Really? Because that's news to me. Do you have a source for that information?


I never talk without facts my dear...erm friend. I thought you had great knowledge about the area you being a Marine (lol) and actually having been to that area as you earlier was boasting to someone else. Anyway, here's just for you my sweet little kuchi kuchi cutipie friend muaaaahh:


Geography of the Strait of Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow waterway that forms the entrance to the Persian Gulf. At its narrowest point it is made up of Omani and Iranian territorial waters and is only 22 nautical miles (nm) wide.

The northern shore is formed by the coastline of Iran. The southern shore is formed by the Musandam Peninsula which belongs to Oman.


Much of the water in the strait is shallow, particularly in the northern part, and is therefore difficult for large ships to navigate. The deeper water lies closer to the southern shore. However, 50nm to the west of the strait, inside the Persian Gulf, the situation is reversed and the deeper water lies within Iranian territorial waters.

strait-of-hormuz.com...

If you are not satisfied, google, yahoo, dogpile etc are there to further assist in your endeavors.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

edit on 6-1-2012 by I AM LEGION because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Sagittarian69
 


NK is definitely on the list. I never really hear anything about Pakistan though. The thing is though, that we know NK has nuclear weapons already so there's nothing we can do to stop them. We're trying to stop Iran from gaining the capabilities because their government is run by Islamic extremists. That isn't propaganda, you can look up some of the crazy # Ahmadinejad has said. Basically their religion dictates that they go to war with Israel so "Imam Mahdi" can return. This is why it's so suspicious that Iran obstructs IAEA inspections and does not answer questions in compliance with the NPT. We KNOW they are hiding what they are doing, we just haven't gone to war yet because we can't prove it. That's why the US is trying to coax Iran into starting something so then we can make sure they don't get that power. If they made nuclear weapons I can GUARANTEE you Israel and Iran would start a nuclear conflict. Their religions completely refute each other. They hate each other and this has always been their history.
edit on 6-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by I AM LEGION
 


Sorry but no where on that page does it say Iran owns half the strait. Lol.

But it DOES say this



The waters inside this 12 mile limit are broadly considered to be an extension of the nation that forms its coastline. However, foreign ships can pass through these waters as long as they don’t linger unnecessarily or cause aggravation while there. This is termed the right of ‘innocent passage’. Foreign warships are usually required to minimise their military profile in order to reduce their potential threat to the coastal state.

While passing through straits, such as the Strait of Hormuz, that run through territorial waters, ships in transit have more rights. In particular, warships can maintain an appropriate degree of combat-readiness.

Seems reasonable? Unfortunately in the Strait of Hormuz and the waters to the west of it, shipping lanes run close to and in some areas through Iranian territorial waters. Under international maritime law the Iranians are entitled to monitor this traffic but the traffic, including warships, is entitled to unimpeded transit. As the US and Iran view each other with great mistrust, the potential for conflict is high.


You were pretty much the farthest you could have gotten from being right in saying "Iran has the right to refuse passage" and "they own half!!!11" yet you still choose to act condescending.

PS I was in Iraq in the middle of the desert.
edit on 6-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stevcolx
Why do those Zionists keep calling it a War?

It's not a war. A war is both sides having a grievance and fighting it out. This is one sided.

It's an invasion. An invasion by the Zionist Elite to steal another country's resources and to murder it's population. Just like Iraq and just like Libya. Genocidal murder for resource control. Iran is not the problem. It has never been the problem. Iran has not invaded another country in over 300 years. Last invasion on Iran was by UK supported Iraq. Iran are not the aggressors. The UK, US, EU Zionist Elite are the aggressors. They are the war mongers and murderers. They are the INVADERS!!!





You are so spot on !!

The Zionists ruling the US is in control of the soldiers.

When will they se that they all are being used by Israel as their " shabbos goy "



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jerisa





Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US state department official now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: "I'm not predicting there is going to be a skirmish, but in the absence of established communications, the tensions and the activity raises the possibility of an unintended exchange of fire."


In other words, all heck could break loose because of a misfire....

Well lets hope there are no fish in the water`s`.

Last time there were fish, Lovely Vietnam was destroyed along with hundreds of thousands
of it`s citizens .

Not to mention 58000 US servicemen.

ALL BASED ON LIES.

Seems like servicemen are ok with that though, they are prepared to die again based on lies.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by apodictic
reply to post by I AM LEGION
 


Sorry but no where on that page does it say Iran owns half the strait. Lol.

But it DOES say this



The waters inside this 12 mile limit are broadly considered to be an extension of the nation that forms its coastline. However, foreign ships can pass through these waters as long as they don’t linger unnecessarily or cause aggravation while there. This is termed the right of ‘innocent passage’. Foreign warships are usually required to minimise their military profile in order to reduce their potential threat to the coastal state.

While passing through straits, such as the Strait of Hormuz, that run through territorial waters, ships in transit have more rights. In particular, warships can maintain an appropriate degree of combat-readiness.

Seems reasonable? Unfortunately in the Strait of Hormuz and the waters to the west of it, shipping lanes run close to and in some areas through Iranian territorial waters. Under international maritime law the Iranians are entitled to monitor this traffic but the traffic, including warships, is entitled to unimpeded transit. As the US and Iran view each other with great mistrust, the potential for conflict is high.


You were pretty much the farthest you could have gotten from being right in saying "Iran has the right to refuse passage" and "they own half!!!11" yet you still choose to act condescending.

PS I was in Iraq in the middle of the desert.


My dear sir/ lady I had to log in again just to reply this to you.

It is not International waters. The strait itself is about 34 nautical miles wide. Iran and Oman, both have 12 nautical miles of territorial waters each.


To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.[1] Although not all countries have ratified the convention,[3] most countries, including the U.S.,[4] accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention.

en.wikipedia.org...

Iran signed, but did not ratify the UNCLOS treaty recognizing the laws of the seas (only 60 countries have done that). The United States also signed, but did not ratify the treaty, so if anyone is going to quote this treaty, then you should also realize that the US government holds no sway in that argument. [Source: en.wikipedia.org...]

I was/ am not condensing unlike you want to believe but in a happy jolly mood with my new year party still going. Hope you are having as much fun as me. Wish we could share some vodka, beer and scotch right now (but I wont share my babes lol). I hope you dont mind If I wont be able to reply to you now as my friends have started coming in for the party and I've to attend them.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides


Well lets hope there are no fish in the water`s`.

Last time there were fish, Lovely Vietnam was destroyed along with hundreds of thousands
of it`s citizens .

Not to mention 58000 US servicemen.

ALL BASED ON LIES

Seems like servicemen are ok with that though, they are prepared to die again based on lies


Vietnam was a totally different situation than the one we are discussing here. We were in Vietnam at the request of the Republic of South Viet Nam who had been under attack by forces of North Viet Nam and China for over 20 years. I am pretty familiar with the situation because i was there from 1970-1972. Where were you?

...and servicemen go where they are told to go; that's their job. They don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and monday morning quarterbacking 45 years after the fact. But it seems to me you are more worried about Iranian soldiers or sailers being injured that the millions that could be wiped off the face of the Earth if Iran is allowed to achieve nuclear capabilites. Ahmajinidad has already made it clear that once they have the ability they will be using their nuclear missles to attack, not just Israel but, American interests within their targeting area.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 


Before I go know you will post some more questions as to how Iran and Oman own 12 nautical miles of the coast and how can Iran ask any international ships not to use it's coast so I thought of saving our time and posting this:


Under the 1982 LOS Convention, a coastal state may claim a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from the coastline. Each nautical mile is equal to 1852 meters. While the territorial sea is part of the sovereign territory of the state, ships of all states have a right of innocent passage through the territorial. Warships which do not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea can be ordered to leave the territorial sea immediately.


Also


On May 2, 1993, the Government of Iran completed legislative action on an "Act on the Marine Areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Oman Sea." The legislation provides a reasonably comprehensive set of maritime claims to a territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and continental shelf, and Iran's jurisdictional claims within those areas. Many of these claims do not comport with the requirements of international law as reflected in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention). Warships and certain other ships are, contrary to international law, required to receive prior approval to engage in innocent passage.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Specially pay attention to the last two words "innocent passage".

So if US says Iran has no right to block the passage under the law, then US also has no right to pass through the strait under the same law as it has not ratified the treaty.

Alright, I'm gonna go now. Have fun!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by I AM LEGION
 


Once again referring to your previous link (strait-of-hormuz.com...)


While passing through straits, such as the Strait of Hormuz, that run through territorial waters, ships in transit have more rights. In particular, warships can maintain an appropriate degree of combat-readiness.


Because the US and Iran both did not ratify the UNCLOS (pretty smart move by both) this means they both recognize and agree with the treaty in principle, but by definition do not both agree with the exact terms pertaining to the treaty, this equals them both out. Iran can technically say "no you cant" but the US can still say "yes i can" and both would not be in violation. So I stand corrected that it's against international law, but nonetheless Iran can't make the US do what they want them to do.

Which is why we are now in the position we're in of military flexing

Also to use your quote here:

ships of all states have a right of innocent passage through the territorial. Warships which do not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea can be ordered to leave the territorial sea immediately.


The bold part does not have to be complied with seeing as both did not ratify the UNCLOS.
It is innocent passage
The fifth fleet's base is in Bahrain. Just passing through!


Just saw your other post. You're right, let Iran block the Strait (they won't.) The US is trying to coax them into a war they will not win so they can not have weapons that the Islamic extremist Ahmadinejad does not need. Closing the Strait would result in more extreme sanctions imposed against them, military action (from the UK AT LEAST) and a result of most of the world turning against Iran. Iran's economy would be completely crippled basically all by their own doing. They have backed themselves into a corner any way you put it.

Your other quotes are bunk seeing as you know neither ratified it.

Here are Iran's choices:

1. Block the Strait (see results above)
2. Back down (and look like an idiot after all the big tough threats
) which is very not likely.
3. Continue the path it's going on which is a direct and obvious path to war and destruction of Iran and suffering of the innocent population.

Adios
edit on 6-1-2012 by apodictic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics




 
140
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join