Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTiger1 on February 16, 2011, 02:14:25 PM
-
Thought it might be better to start another thread. How real is the shit gonna get over there and are we ready to deal with it?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148414160885824.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703373404576148414160885824.html)
By RICHARD BOUDREAUX
JERUSALEM—Iran is sending two warships through the Suez Canal en route to Syria, Israel's foreign minister said Wednesday, calling the act a "provocation" that Israel cannot ignore.
The Iranian plan described by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman would take the warships past Israel's coast. While it would pose no significant military threat to Israel, he said that such a close encounter between forces of the two countries had not occurred in many years.
"Tonight, two Iranian warships are meant to pass through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean Sea and reach Syria," Mr. Lieberman told a group of Jewish leaders in closed-door remarks that a government spokesman later confirmed. The minister said the plan "proves that the self confidence and cheek of the Iranians is growing from day-to-day" following the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.
"To my regret, the international community is not showing readiness to deal with the recurring Iranian provocations," he added. "The international community must understand that Israel cannot forever ignore these provocations."
More
* Hezbollah Leader Warns of Conflict
Syria is one of Israel's neighboring adversaries and an ally of Iran, whose nuclear program is viewed by Israel as a threat to its existence.
The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, quoting unnamed Israeli security officials, identified the Iranian ships as an MK-5 frigate and a supply vessel. It said they would dock at a Syrian port for a year. The report said Israel is concerned by Iranian plans to deploy warships in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.
The newspaper said no Iranian naval vessel had passed through Suez since Iran's Is
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/02/16/two-iranian-warships-about-pass-through-suez-canal-israel-may-act (http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/02/16/two-iranian-warships-about-pass-through-suez-canal-israel-may-act)
Israel is monitoring two Iranian warships about to pass through the Suez Canal for Syria and warn they might act.
Israeli's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says that "Israel cannot ignore these provocations," according to ynetnews.com.
Lieberman added that the warships was "a provocation that proves Iran's nerve and self-esteem is growing from day to day."
Iran announced plans to deploy warships near Israel and dock at a Syrian port for a year, IsraelNationalNews.com reports.
A senior Israeli official tells the site that "Israel will know how to deal with it."
I think that Israel has stated pretty much that they don't care who says what and who supports who, but when it comes to their survival they will do whatever necessary to ensure it. I don't think for one second that if Iran starts some shit, Israel wouldn't care if everyone around them were glowing in the dark as long as they were standing at the end.
-
The international community watched while N. Korea sank a member’s ship-and did nothing. The UN is a joke, as is the so called “International communityâ€
(http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn225/karlalou_2008/Head.jpg)
-
The international community watched while N. Korea sank a member’s ship-and did nothing. The UN is a joke, as is the so called “International communityâ€
Not disputing that at all. Just curious if others think if it's about to get real over there and where, what we do.
-
It's ironic because I started to write a thread this morning on a very similar subject but got into something else and never finished it. In a nuttzshell, I've often wondered why it always seems to be us against the world? It's the U.S. always fighting everyone else's battles and trying to police the world. North Korea fucks with South Korea? We send ships. Really? Why the hell do we have such a presence over there anyway? Does Russia? France? England? So those two duke it out. Maybe I'm naive but how exaclty does that affect us? I know you can spin it 18 different ways but seriously, that shit would go on for 10 years and while the landscape might change a bit, the only thing I see coming out of that is 97 trillion products maunufactured over there coming back to the U.S. and creating a million or so jobs. Oh...and U.S. citizens will probably have to cut down on their vacationing to South Korea.
I know that's simplistic thinking. I got it. But what are we expected to do about unrest in Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Sudan, Fuckistan, Cunnulingustan.....? Especially if...as many have said...America has long since adpoted the policy of a kinder, gentler form of warfare. Bottom line, find out who our allies are...pull out of all these obscure places around the world..come home and build up our military, our overall defenses, bring the manufacturing back to the U.S of A. and dare a mother fucker to come across the ponds. Let them all blow themselves up. If Europe doesn't have the ballz to handle shit going on in their own back yard, screw em'. They'll eventually be forced to deal with it.
-
I'm all for a cage match.
-
Not disputing that at all. Just curious if others think if it's about to get real over there and where, what we do.
The events in Egypt the past few weeks have had me a little worried and thinking a great deal about what the heck is going on over there in the Middle East. Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan I don't think things have been this critical since the mad mullahs deposed the Shah in February of 1979 (and later held the US Embassy officials hostage for 444 days while Carter dawdled).
I don't think that anyone truly has a grasp of it (least of all our Great Leader, Chairman Maobama, who is WAAY over his head). As much as I hate to admit it I think that Hillary Clinton got it right the first time by saying we probably need to support Mubarak. It's best to deal with the devil you know than the one that you don't. And it was the height of stupidity for the National Security Advisor to say that a supposedly peaceful organization called "the Muslim Brotherhood is largely heterogeneous and secular". This guy has obviously been smoking too much hashish because he's not listening to the words coming out of his own mouth.
On the other hand the Ummbama Administration made a huge mistake two summers ago by NOT supporting the people of Iran in their popular (and peaceful) movement against the mad mullahs and ayatollahs that control their country. The world was watching and Ummbama did nothing but sit on his thumbs while the Iranian Regime crushed a real freedom movement.
Both of these situations represent huge mistakes in Foreign Policy the way I consider it (remind anyone of Carter not supporting the Shah in 1979?...look what we got out of that...30+ years of worldwide, state-sponsored, Islamic-inspired terrorism).
Anyway, the situation in Egypt has jeopardized the Suez canal first and the security of Israel too. A known factor has been removed and supposedly replaced by a 'freedom' movement but in reality it's a military junta. And the mad mullahs are exacerbating that situation further by sending a couple of warships through the Suez.
If the situation is inflamed further I'm not sure what Ummbama will do but I'd like to think that someone in the State Dept. will be smart enough to at least make sure that the Canal is protected one way or another. It doesn't effect us as much as it does our European Allies and Britain.
I think they obviously could care less about Israel (judging by the way the Israeli delegates were treated when they last visited the White House). Despite the lip service the Mouth of Sauron The ONE the protection of Israel is not a factor in the current Administration's foreign policy (such that it is).
Well, there's nothing to worry about here according to 'Jimmah':
"I think the Muslim Brotherhood is not anything to be afraid of in the upcoming (Egyptian) political situation and the evolution I see as most likely," Carter said. "They will be subsumed in the overwhelming demonstration of desire for freedom and true democracy."
Fat chance.
Here's the rest of that last article:
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/carter-says-egyptian-military-likely-to-obey-will-1256980.html
-
It's ironic because I started to write a thread this morning on a very similar subject but got into something else and never finished it. In a nuttzshell, I've often wondered why it always seems to be us against the world? It's the U.S. always fighting everyone else's battles and trying to police the world. North Korea phuks with South Korea? We send ships. Really? Why the hell do we have such a presence over there anyway? Does Russia? France? England? So those two duke it out. Maybe I'm naive but how exaclty does that affect us? I know you can spin it 18 different ways but seriously, that poop would go on for 10 years and while the landscape might change a bit, the only thing I see coming out of that is 97 trillion products maunufactured over there coming back to the U.S. and creating a million or so jobs. Oh...and U.S. citizens will probably have to cut down on their vacationing to South Korea.
I know that's simplistic thinking. I got it. But what are we expected to do about unrest in Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Sudan, phukistan, Cunnulingustan.....? Especially if...as many have said...America has long since adpoted the policy of a kinder, gentler form of warfare. Bottom line, find out who our allies are...pull out of all these obscure places around the world..come home and build up our military, our overall defenses, bring the manufacturing back to the U.S of A. and dare a mother phuker to come across the ponds. Let them all blow themselves up. If Europe doesn't have the ballz to handle poop going on in their own back yard, screw em'. They'll eventually be forced to deal with it.
Maybe we should've taken heed of Pres. George Washington's advice in 1796:
...
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
...
-
Thanks to the U.S. Army I was allowed to travel over there and learn some things. It is pretty simple-We either fuck’em up over there-or were gonna have to fuck em up over here.
-
I have always said that 1 big assed strategically placed Nuke would solve all our problems. Until they realize we can and will take care of business, they will continue to throw rocks.
-
I have always said that 1 big assed strategically placed Nuke would solve all our problems. Until they realize we can and will take care of business, they will continue to throw rocks.
I'm in agreement....in principal. Don't know if I'd go so far as nukes, but I would definitely get behind turning the military loose. If the decision is made to go to war, then go to war to win. As many here have alluded to, our military has long since been handcuffed. Why get involved in any of this mess around the world if we're not willing to napalm a bitch? We're not coming to your country to weed out the infidels. We're coming to wipe it out. If you don't want that to happen, then kick the little tyrants out before it happens.
That really has been a big part of my point all along. We try to police too much, when nobody else will get involved. But we're (Gov.) not willing to do what it takes and too many of our soldiers die as a result. In addition, I think we need to be a little more choosey about where we have a presence around the globe. I read today where unrest in Bahrain is so worriesome because we have a Naval base in that region. Really? Why? I'm sure they love us there. Exactly where is their military base located in the United States?
-
Thanks to the U.S. Army I was allowed to travel over there and learn some things. It is pretty simple-We either fuck’em fight em over there-or were gonna have to fuck fight em up over here.
Let me edit my own post: I don't think this country (and current leadership) have the heart to really go after it.
-
Let me edit my own post: I don't think this country (and current leadership) have the heart to really go after it.
Ding. Ding. Ding.. We have a winner.
-
I have always said that 1 big assed strategically placed Nuke would solve all our problems. Until they realize we can and will take care of business, they will continue to throw rocks.
You do realize what one of our medium sized nuclear weapons would do to this planet, right?
-
You do realize what one of our medium sized nuclear weapons would do to this planet, right?
Keep us warm?
-
You do realize what one of our medium sized nuclear weapons would do to this planet, right?
Increase the amount of valuable beach front property?
(http://resources.bplondon.org/images/antiinspiration/ground-zero-ocean.jpg)