PDA

View Full Version : Is Israel the west's last best hope?



LWW
03-16-2011, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JERUSALEM (Reuters) Israeli naval commandos on Tuesday seized a cargo ship in the Mediterranean carrying what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said were Iranian-supplied weapons intended for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. </div></div>

Thank God one western nation still has a set. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110315/wl_nm/us_israel_ship)

Sev
03-16-2011, 07:57 AM
I would like to see Israel sink that Iranian battle ships.

LWW
03-16-2011, 08:01 AM
You might.

Bank when America had a real president, we put a bunch of the Iranian navy at sea bottom level.

Soflasnapper
03-16-2011, 01:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like to see Israel sink that Iranian battle ships. </div></div>

You can get medication for that problem instead of wishing the imminent onset of WW III in the Levant. Ask your doctor if it's right for you.

Soflasnapper
03-16-2011, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might.

Bank when America had a real president, we put a bunch of the Iranian navy at sea bottom level. </div></div>

A 'bunch of the Iranian navy'? Some speed boats? One missile boat? Larger boats were damaged badly but not sunk.

Perhaps you're remembering the glory days when the USS Vincennes blew that fully loaded Iranian passenger plane out of the sky, killing all civilians aboard, 290, with over 60 children?

Indeed, a proud moment for America. Ready, fire, aim!

An apologist book, and some responses (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557507279/unofficiusnav-20)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Storm Center" is a sad work of fiction. Capt. Rogers still insists that he didn't order the Vincennes into Iranian territorial waters, despite the admission by the US Navy (finally made after 3 years of denials) to the ICAO, the contents video tape made during the incident, as well as the data from the Vincennes itself and also the control towers in the region. This was NOT an act of self-defense, since Rogers was the one who violated his own ROE and illegally crossed into Iranian waters to shoot up some speedboats when he was under no threat. The Vincennes was the one which initiated the fight, inside Iranian waters. She was not coming to the aid of any tankers either. The incident was an act of reckless mass homicide at best, and the fact that the true events were covered up by the US Navy for 4 years until the Newsweek/Nightline expose leaves an indelible stain and taint on the honor of the UN Navy. A lot of patriotic flag waving isn't going to clean this up either. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> This book is a pathetic apology from a man who tried to rationalize and justify for what was arguably the biggest military blunder ever that bordered on mass killing, and on top of that, he tried to make few bucks off it by writing a book about the incident. If it weren't for the political circumstance that surrounded the downing of Iran Air Flight 655, William C. Rogers III would most likely been prosecuted for making a colossal blunder that took away the lives of 290 civilian passengers and also contributed to strain US and Iran relations for decades. Despite numerous warning signs, he acted well beyond gross negligence and recklessness and fired on a passenger airliner. His action was inexcusable and reprehensible. Black and white evidence from independent sources is there for anyone who is capable enough to research and see it with their own eyes - which will clearly indicate that William C. Rogers III acted irresponsibly and recklessly. And his actions led to what most independent sources consider as the biggest military blunder ever. At the time, US government had very little choice but to support his action due to the political circumstance surrounding it; however, in these post 9/11 days, maybe we should another look at this incident and bring at least a civil action against William C. Rogers III on behalf of the victims to see the justice done and to remind ourselves that excusing this type of action not only damages our own sense of humanity but also helps to create more and more terrorist who will try to exact their revenge on oblivious US civilians who, for the most part, are largely unconcerned and uneducated about what goes on outside the border. </div></div>

LWW
03-17-2011, 03:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might.

Bank when America had a real president, we put a bunch of the Iranian navy at sea bottom level. </div></div>

A 'bunch of the Iranian navy'? Some speed boats? One missile boat? Larger boats were damaged badly but not sunk.
</div></div>

TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/19/world/us-strikes-2-iranian-oil-rigs-hits-6-warships-battles-over-mining-sea-lanes-gulf.html)

Soflasnapper
03-17-2011, 04:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might.

Bank when America had a real president, we put a bunch of the Iranian navy at sea bottom level. </div></div>

A 'bunch of the Iranian navy'? Some speed boats? One missile boat? Larger boats were damaged badly but not sunk.
</div></div>

TRUTH VS TRUTHINESS (http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/19/world/us-strikes-2-iranian-oil-rigs-hits-6-warships-battles-over-mining-sea-lanes-gulf.html)
</div></div>

Still with that reading comprehension thing? Sorry to read of it.

As the headline blurs the reality (sunk or damaged), about page 3 describes what they mean by that and what was sunk or damaged. It's as I said.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Cobras are heavily armed scout helicopters that have been used in the Persian Gulf to patrol waters around large vessels, looking for small, armed Iranian boats. The aircraft are equipped for night flying. Chronology of Battle

In today's clashes, United States ships sank an Iranian missile patrol boat that approached and fired on them. Later, jets from the aircraft carrier Enterprise sank or badly damaged three large armed speedboats that were shelling oil facilities or merchant ships. And in two other incidents, the Navy's ships and planes severely damaged two Iranian frigates that fired on American ships and aircraft.</div></div>

So they really didn't have a navy, per se.

Moreover, note that Reagan's ordered attacks here were to defend something of importance to the US-- oil. When he ordered strikes on Tripoli, it was to defend or avenge something important to the US-- US servicemen killed in a disco bombing in Germany thought to be ordered by Libya.

Show me where, at any time, Reagan attacked anyone over human rights issues internal to the country.

LWW
03-18-2011, 03:24 AM
Show me where I said he did?

What's that?

I didn't?

You were attempting to deflect?

But, to humor you:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: 'We will bury you.' But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

"And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

"Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'" </div></div>

Soflasnapper
03-20-2011, 02:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me where I said he did?

What's that?

I didn't?

You were attempting to deflect?

But, to humor you:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: 'We will bury you.' But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.

"And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.

"Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'" </div></div>
</div></div>

And I quote myself:

Still with that reading comprehension thing? Sorry to read of it.

So he RHETORICALLY attacked them? LOL!