fulhamfanincork wrote: » Well like we are a stakeholder in nato so i decide we use nat o nukes to nuke the fo-shizzle out of the libyan cretins.
Royal Irish wrote: » Already we have seen Iranian warships pass through the Suez canal, which hasnt happened in over 30 years I think. It wouldnt of happened if Mubarak was still in charge..
prinz wrote: » AFAIK the two ships (one of which is a supply ship) are due to enter the Med tomorrow, if at all according to some news reports. There are conflicting news reports over the last few days, ships are continuing, ships withdrew application to use canal, Egyptians are postponing rights to use canal.... all a bit up in the air. Although the Suez is regarded as an internal Egyptian waterway, there are international agreements in place as to fair usage etc., with Egypt only being allowed to block civilian international shipping from a certain country if at war with that country. Military shipping has to get clearance (which is only denied if the military shipping is deemed a security risk to Egypt itself) from the Egyptian authorities to make the journey through the canal which the Iranians seem to have done and paid the cost of passing (something like quarter of a million dollars). As for this being a new departure, I looked for examples of Iranians requesting access to military ships before and being denied by Mubarak's Egypt and haven't found any records. Could it be that it hasn't happened before because the Iranian Navy never requested passage before?
nacho libre wrote: » So you're saying Iran is testing the new Egyptian regime. Here is some background info on Suleiman:http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/201127114827382865.html
"In this case as long as they (Iranians) are not conducting some sort belligerent operation I think they would have a right to go through the canal like any other country; they are conducting counter piracy operations in that area," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.
Royal Irish wrote: » But worse still the likes of the muslim brotherhood will introduce Sharia Law, which in my opinion is just medieval savagery. They have already been quoted as saying that they will introduce it and people will still vote for it. I'd rather live under a dictatorship than live with the possibility of one of my sisters being stoned to death because she came home from a night out with a 1.5 inch scrape on her bum. If they even go as far as very strict Sharia Law that the Pashto Taliban live under, that would mean that young girls wont be allowed an education. Stuff like that just shouldnt happen in the 21st century and its where those countries a heading.
Crosáidí wrote: » Ireland isn't in NATO
positron wrote: » The unrest in the middle east should be our way out of the economic mess. Here's the draft plan. * Irish Government should declare emergency. * Takeover Ryanair, AerLingus and all their air crafts and staff. * Roundup men and women and beer onto planes, and arm them and drop them off near Libya. * Promise Libyans that we are there to help, just to get Gaddaffi out. * Wreck the place in the name of war. Blame it alll on Gaddaffi's people of course. * Install Irish-friendly people into power. * Strike cheap oil deal, and win all regeneration, rebuilding contracts. * Profilt!!! Oh sorry, that somehow sounds like what Americans do.
seamus wrote: » As they say, a democratic population votes for the government that it deserves.
wes wrote: » Its truly amazing that people seem to think peaceful pro-democracy protesters, are some how interested in starting a war with the West. Some people are truly living on bizaro world.
prinz wrote: » I am saying the Iranians are doing a bit of strutting showing off their first home-built frigate about the region. As for testing the new regime.... I'm still not aware they 'tested' the old regime. Could just be a coincidence of timing, as the Iranian navy has not ventured that far 'til now. The two ships pose no serious threat in and of themselves so I was failing to see the reasoning Egypt could give for refusing them passage. What has Suleiman to do with what I said http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110216/ts_nm/us_israel_iran_warships_4
nacho libre wrote: » Also the fact that you pointed out to the best of your knowledge Iran hadn't sought to use this passage under Mubarak, this signalled that the Iranians were looking to see how the new Egyptian leadership would respond to such a request.
Freddie59 wrote: » In fairness, do you honestly believe that the displaced regimes are going to be replaced with bona fide democracies, which allow freedom of speech and expression. You just get the feeling that OBL and his henchmen are nudging all this along. It's all too coincidental.
wes wrote: » Right now, the people want democracies, and I am hopeful they can pull it off.
Freddie59 wrote: » Oh so simplistic view of America. Tell me - do you use any American-made products? Or maybe some of that oil from the ME?
Tabnabs wrote: » Lasers back in your holsters cowboys, rumours are that Gadaffi is off to Venezuela.
sdonn wrote: » NATO wouldn't be any help. What's needed is a little UK/US covert op to behead the gadaffi family and presto, psuedo-liberation.
Lirange wrote: » This is going to be much worse than Egypt in terms of loss of life.
wes wrote: » I have no idea what will replace them, and I think these peaceful protests have shown how completely irrelevant Osama is to the people of the ME. He has more relevance to people in the West, as a boogie man. Osama is a joke, living in a cave, with some nut jobs who still follow him. Right now, the people want democracies, and I am hopeful they can pull it off.
johnmcdnl wrote: » well are you going to deny they do it???? what does it matter if we use american goods or not - no one mentioned anything about supporting the tactic - just that they do it;)
Jaiden Microscopic Soybean wrote: » Either you believe a war will make diesel cheaper or you don't.. explain.
