Iranian Naval Vessels Enter Suez Canal

reply to post by Riffrafter

The tone of your posts seems pretty one-sided, Proto.

If one didn't know better, from reading your posts you might think that the gov't of Iran was just a bunch of girl scouts while the Israeli gov't was just a bunch of thugs.

Clearly you don't know better, thus the reason for your admission when attempting to frame an argument for me, that would of course be something easier for you to challenge than my own.

I don't care for the regime in Israel or Iran, but great news, it's not my business, I don't live in Israel and Iran, I live in America, an America with millions of unemployed people, a 14 trillion dollar debt from fighting phony wars, a corrupt government that has aided a more corrupt corporate body to transfer away all the jobs that the 20 million unemployed would love to have, all to make us dependent on substandard wages, corporate domination and dependent on their Internationalist Agenda since we no longer make or grow enough of any the important things to make us self suficient.

Gee was that the argument you were going to make for me?

I really doubt it.

Do I want my grand children to pay the interest on one more missile system or smart bomb for the Israelis? No!

Do I care if some Iranians are unhappy with their own government? No!

Because all those things simply distract Americans from solving their own problems.

Now you can pretend I pray at a Mosque even though I am an athiest of White Anglo Saxon Protestant Stock, you can pretend I was born in the Middle East and I have 20 pounds of explosives strapped to me right now and am just outside a Wal-Mart to make silly off topic posts, and ad-hominen attacks, but that's all you will be doing is pretending.

The world has yet to achieve peace and prosperity through violence and as long as that Iranian warship doesn't start shooting anyone, it should be left alone.

Thanks.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


No, picking sides would be making a moral argument one way or another, but I am only stating what I believe is strategically prudent. Obviously International Law is violated one way or another when any skirmish starts, it is a farce that nobody respects when the fangs come out.

I don't know if Israel deserves their real estate or not, I don't know if they are behind 9/11, I don't know if their forays into the Gaza Strip are in self-defense or oppression, but I know if I were them, I would not allow Iran to have ships in Syria.

On the flipside, if I were Iran, I would not allow Israel to get away with their supposed spying and flyovers, and I would not like the cozy relationship of Israel with the West. Strategically, I would be seeking to drive wedges between Israel and everyone else, and I would be playing the victim instead of the aggressor and I would be "defending" myself more often if I got the opportunity.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I honestly don't know where I stand on the issue of Israel, so I can't take your bait on this one, but I do know that whatever Israel may be doing on the downlow, Iran is doing out in the open. They openly and consistently call for the destruction or total annihilation of Israel, and Israel is surrounded by enemies, so if they are paranoid, it is well deserved.

With the current situation in the Middle East, Israel should be even more paranoid than before. There is the potential to get an unfriendly Egyptian government, an unfriendly Libyan government, and a stricter Muslim controlled government in Bahrain and Kuwait which were both fairly westernized up to now.

Like them or hate them, you have to see why they would be quick to strike at this moment in time.

Actually that's not true my friend, and I am surprised you harbor that illusion. They have called for an end of the Zionist regime in Israel, just as many Americans here have called for an end of the Zionist influence in Washington.

Iran actually has one of the largest Jewish Populations in the Middle East outside of Israel, and they seem to enjoy living there so much, that lucractive offers of cash and housing have never been able to lure them away.

There was a significant exodus of some right after the revolution because they really did not know how they would fare in post revolution Iran but since then it's been a very stable and propserous community.

Farsi to English like many langauges to English doesn't always allow for exact translations, and that provocative statement has been so debunked so many times I don't know why people of intelligence keep repeating it.

Iran would like to see the Zionist regime in Israel fall, you are right they make no bones about it, I would like to see the Zionist regime in Israel fall and I make no bones about it, just as I would like to see the Neo-Conservative War-mongering faction that often supports and allies itself with Zionist causes out of government.

Now what Iran hasn't done, is the same thing I haven't done and said that they would like to see that happen through violence.

Nor have they tried to do that through violence.

The Zionist Regime is a hawkish one that is pro-war, pro-domination by arms, and yes it is very much an impedement to true peace, just as the neo-conservative pro-zionist faction that started a war on terror that they tell us won't end in our lifetimes.

Do you want perpetual war, I sure don't.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Do I want my grand children to pay the interest on one more missile system or smart bomb for the Israelis? No!

Do I care if some Iranians are unhappy with their own government? No!

Because all those things simply distract Americans from solving their own problems.

This I can agree with. I say we bow out and let them all do what they have been trying to do for millenia. When the dust settles, we can move in and help the poor farmers that survive, and we can run our empire with their resources. No reason to get our hands dirty at all!

US is often accused of Empire building and resource stealing, so what better way than let them all fight it out amongst theirselves and then move in after they have done all the dirty work.

Best way to protect our grandchildren from war and debt is to get the hell out of their right now.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I said "Israel" not all Jews. I agree on some of your points, but Iran does obviously want the Israeli state destroyed. It has been hated since it was created, and with plenty of good reasons. Still, if anyone openly calls for the destruction of your state, you have to take them as a viable threat, and you have to proactively defend yourself at all times.

Israel is surrounded by Muppets who want to blow them up.

The Cargo on these ships is "supposedly" missiles and other weapons to help these so called Muppets do their job.

THIS is why Israel is concerned about the Iranian boats going to Syria.

The Iranians will not fire upon Israel as they sail by, they're not that stupid.

Its a big worry to Israel and I can see why!

Would you live next door to a pub / bar if your partner was an alcoholic? No, you don't want the two being close to one another!

reply to post by getreadyalready

And you are still wrong in your reply to pt. Iran has not called for the destruction of Israel, it called for the ending of the Zionist regime. Please look up the quote you are deriving this idea from, as it was purposefully mis-translated by the Zionists.
While Iran may feel that it's lousy for land to have been taken away from Palestinians and given to any Jews that could be bought and paid for to return, they have not called for Israel's destruction as you claim.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I said "Israel" not all Jews. I agree on some of your points, but Iran does obviously want the Israeli state destroyed. It has been hated since it was created, and with plenty of good reasons. Still, if anyone openly calls for the destruction of your state, you have to take them as a viable threat, and you have to proactively defend yourself at all times.

Honestly I don't truly know about that, because the Shah while wary of Israel was a great ally to it. I think the average Iranian is Jewish tollerant because of the large Jewish Community that dwells within Iran that by it's own statements says it's not persecuted and is allowed to worship and do business freely.

I think a lot would change in the Middle East if Israel just sat down with the Palestianians did something fair to create a accord they could really live with and then didn't try to sabotage it as they often do.

I am not keen on the Theocracy inside of Iran, but I appreciate that they haven't attacked anyone or started any wars through overt act since they took over the Country.

I am old enough to remember pre-revolution Iran, and having lived in Washington D.C. at that time, I knew a number of the influtential families within the Shah's regime, my own brother's roommate in prep-school was the cheif diplomat in charge of affairs at the Iranian embassy throughout the whole hostage ordeal. So yeah it was all something that hit's home when your own brother, is bunking with the son of someone that high up the food chain directly involved.

I had a number of friends who are ex-Savak, the Shah's Secret Police, and met a number of people coming out of Iran post revolutions, so I have seen all sides of the Iranian equation in a way that the mainstream news media just doesn't cover.

I think it's a mistake to attack another oil producing nation, especially one who's only international crimes are not liking a nation that has a lot of human rights violations (Israel) and wanting to have the technology that makes it a world player.

Those are pretty flimsy excuses for war, when it's a nation that really has not attacked anyone.

Thanks.

So the ships have reach the other side. They are now in international waters.

Will Israel do something... probably not unless the Iranian ships are stupid enough to enter Israeli waters.

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
You made some very provocative statements calling for War with no overt agressive act having been committed that could possibly justify it.

You seem to be under the impression that because Iran isnt running bombing sorties over Tel-Aviv or because they don’t have a dozen infantry divisions pushing across the border that they are not at war with the Israelis. They have waged a generation long proxy war against Israel using surrogates like Hamas and Hezbollah to do what their armies have been historically unable to. I dont understand why your "dep thinking" cant see whats plain to see.

Actually no, they haven't, they have done what every other cash rich nation who wants to project a sphere of influence does, and that's provide money and likely weapons too, to political groups who espouse a smiliar idealogy, or mutual tollerance.

Now during that same time the CIA, MOSSAD and British Intelligence have out spent by likely billions setting up opposition parties in Iran, considering Persia predates Israel, and the U.S.A. I am not sure who has the right of way here, or which came first the chicken or the egg.

What I can say is if that the sole pretext for war was the fact that various countries fund various political and militant factions outside of their own borders, then every country in the world should be in an overt shooting war with one another, since every nation does that to every other nation, including our own including Israel, including Israel to our own.

In fact Israeli lobbying has done more to undermine the American Democratic Process and help the rise of the Shadow Government than just about anything I can think of.

If you actually thought a bit deeper you would know that there is something ancient at play and it's called 'Bellum omnium contra omnes' that every nation, religion, political faction and indeed person is involved in.

So no, as usual you are incorrect I am well aware of Irans funding of like minded organizations and parties. As I am well aware of every other nation that does the same.

I will leave it to you to do the translation and find out what Bellum omnium contra omnes actually means, and when you study those principles and the Hegelian dialect as Fleetwood Mac says...you'll see things in a different way.

Me, I just can't stop dreaming about tomorrow, a peaceful and prosperous one, sans war.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Israel won't do a thing. This is not what the doom-laden-war-monger-arm-chair-fantasists want to hear.

Israel will be quite happy to sit back and see whether the popular uprisings playing out across the Middle East will reach the oppressed of the Islamic Republic. Why divert attention away from the reshaping of the Arab world which may deliver some much needed democratisation / liberalisation, which in turn will benefit Israel as things may become less polarised.

Let’s just hope that Iran in an attempt to avoid internal strife do not engineer a confrontation. Iran relies on hatred (the Big Satan) to survive and feed the fires of their particular brand of revolution. As we have seen, a potion of the Iranian population are not exactly content. Hanging a few protesters may subdue the population for a while, but not for ever - especially if things do change for the better elsewhere in the Arab world. Let's hope the change is for the better.

To topic. The Iranian naval frigate is hardly going to be doing very much. It is not like the ship is a significant naval entity. The Suez transit is just political posturing. Bluff and more bluff.

Regards

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Clearly you don't know better, thus the reason for your admission when attempting to frame an argument for me, that would of course be something easier for you to challenge than my own.

What's with the nastiness?

I was simply pointing out that your posts in this thread seem one-sided with little to no mention as to WHY Israel might be agitated by the Iranian warships going through the canal. Is that not germane to the issue at hand?

BTW - In doing so I did challenge your position by pointing that out and presenting those reasons. I didn't frame an argument for you, I just pointed out that there was an argument to be made and then I made it.

As far as the rest of your post, I respect that those are your feelings and opinions but please don't imply they had anything to do with my post or my views. I have no intention of making any arguments for you, you're able to speak for yourself....as am I.

Most importantly, I never said anything about wanting violence - I think you've confused me with another poster...unless that was just a general comment. Because I agree, violence is that last thing anyone needs in that region right now.

Not that that ever mattered before - especially in that region.

Keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that cooler heads will prevail here. If not, we're going to have a helluva mess on our hands very quickly...

reply to post by Riffrafter

Most importantly, I never said anything about wanting violence - I think you've confused me with another poster...unless that was just a general comment. Because I agree, violence is that last thing anyone needs in that region right now.

Not that that ever mattered before - especially in that region.

Keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that cooler heads will prevail here. If not, we're going to have a helluva mess on our hands very quickly...

Glad to hear all that, very much so, and appreciate you taking the time to share your feelings.

Thanks for posting.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Hope springs eternal....

But that and a token will get me on the subway.

Wait...they don't even take tokens anymore...

Originally posted by getreadyalready

I am not picking sides on who is right or wrong, but strategically, if I were Israel, I would counter this action very strongly, either by sinking or boarding the ships, or by placing ships of my own near Iran.

Certainly looks like you're picking sides. Exactly what right does Israel have to either sink or board the ships of a sovereign nation while in international waters? Let me give you a hint, none. Oh I forgot, we're talking about Israel for whom the rules do not apply.

reply to post by quackers


No, we are talking about direct threats and proactive actions.

If you say you are going to kill my dog, and then I see you walking down the street with something in a case, it could be a pool cue, or it could be a rifle, you are on public roads, I am going to come out and figure out what is in the case, law or no law. If you have threatened me, then I am justified in taking action to defend myself, I am not going to wait until my dog is in your crosshairs, I am going to be proactive.

Just to be fair, Israel constantly talks about destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, if an errant Israeli aircraft strays into range of something important, I fully support Iran in shooting it down. Even if it turns out to have been tourists, they are justified in taking action.

And that is my nice guy approach, in reality if you threatened harm against me or my family, I would probably show up in your home at your bedside one night and we would discuss the ins and outs of messing with someone like me, and maybe you would get to see daylight again, but no guarantees. In reality, this is the approach I would take if I were Israel, but that isn't the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

No, we are talking about direct threats and proactive actions.

You say it is proactive, I say it would be an instigator. You automatically take Israels side by stating they have the right to attack another country's vessels simply because they are there. They have no such right, in fact they would not only be in violation of international law but they would be committing an act of war. You seem fine to allow Israel to break the law but I somehow doubt you would be as accommodating if a member of this board suggested others go out and commit murder, yet that is exactly what you are doing.

If you say you are going to kill my dog, and then I see you walking down the street with something in a case, it could be a pool cue, or it could be a rifle, you are on public roads, I am going to come out and figure out what is in the case, law or no law. If you have threatened me, then I am justified in taking action to defend myself, I am not going to wait until my dog is in your crosshairs, I am going to be proactive.

Ah, so just because I say I'm going to kill your dog means I have no right to walk down a public street without being confronted by some nut job who has zero regard for the law? Do words hurt you that much, really? Words? C'mon.

Just to be fair, Israel constantly talks about destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, if an errant Israeli aircraft strays into range of something important, I fully support Iran in shooting it down. Even if it turns out to have been tourists, they are justified in taking action.

But you wouldn't support Iran shooting down and Israeli aircraft in international airspace would you? So how can you support Israel attacking an Iranian vessel in international waters? Pretty sure that's double standards there chum.

And that is my nice guy approach, in reality if you threatened harm against me or my family, I would probably show up in your home at your bedside one night and we would discuss the ins and outs of messing with someone like me, and maybe you would get to see daylight again, but no guarantees. In reality, this is the approach I would take if I were Israel, but that isn't the topic of this thread.

Thanks for showing us that you cannot tell the difference between a perceived threat and an actual threat. This is the mentality the rest of the world has to deal with. Trigger happy fools who only agree with the law when it is applied to others and not to themselves.

reply to post by quackers


You misread my pool cue analogy, it was going to be you with the pool cue in the street. Otherwise I agree that if you threaten me, then you lose the right to walk down a public street near my house. Actually, you have the right, but you must accept the consequences.

And, as for Iran shooting down an aircraft in International Air Space, don't be so quick to assume. I didn't say "Iranian airspace," I said "in range of something important." If a quasi-military style craft approaches in International Air space, after Israel makes a threats, and it gets close enough to be within range to do damage, I would support Iran shooting it down. I would also support Iran buying Chinese weapons to shoot down spy satellites. I believe everyone has a right to defend themselves aggressively.

And no, I am not trigger happy, I have been carrying a gun for almost 20 years and I have never felt the need to pull it out yet. I am pretty quick tempered, and I have felt the need many times to shut somebody up, or parade them around and coerce an apology out of them, but even in those instances, with my gun under my shirt, I never felt the need to use it.

It is not "trigger happy" to take someone at their word when they threaten you. It is prudent and logical to take them at their word and respond accordingly. So, if Iran makes a threat, and then moves some hardware into place that potentially could make good on the threat, they should shoot it down or sink it, and the same goes for Iran reacting to Israel's threats.

reply to post by getreadyalready


So you agree it would be fine to shoot down Israel's aircraft and drones that breach Lebanon's airspace on a daily basis then?

reply to post by mayabong


Yes, if they have a history of firing upon people there. (which they do.)

I also say it is fine for Israel to fire upon enemy forces in Lebanon, if there is a history of them firing upon Israeli real estate. (which they do too.)

And, I don't see this as a problem. If one country wants to allow people to take potshots from their territory, then they should expect retaliation, if someone else wants to continually invade foreign airspace and be a looming threat, then they should expect retaliation.

Eventually maybe they will either settle down and learn to live in peace, or they will kill each other off. Either way is acceptable to me.