Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Catto, catto, catto, I love you, buddy, but this isn't a "time of war". War vessels are only allowed free passage in a time of war with advance written permission from Egypt, which they have not requested.
As for the 48 hour rule, you're just speculating. Not to mention, you don't find it, at a minimum, odd, that Iran would put a couple of warships within 48 hours' reach of the entry to the canal before bothering to ask permission to pass through it?
I'm not sure why you don't seem to find this move a potential sign of provocation.
Iranian ships can pass thru the canal anytime Egypt says they can. Period. End of Story.
Look...i've noticed that folks on the right see breathing oxygen by the Iranians as a provocation at this point. It's getting ridiculous. Must everything the Iranians do be interpreted as a prelude to war? And just because the Israeli's take any picayne action by the Iranians as a provocation for war, must i as an American buy into it?
Well, if you view Iran sending warships through the Suez Canal, not during a time of war, which hasn't been done since 1979, on their way to Syria, a "picayune action", you're certainly entitled to. I think it's naïve and possibly short-sighted, but no one can force you to see it as something to be concerned about, even if only mildly. I'd just like to ask you to look at the bigger picture and consider it. Iran doesn't do anything without some ulterior motive somewhere down the line and I don't think it's wise to trust them any further than one can throw a warship.
Iranian ships can pass thru the canal anytime Egypt says they can. Period. End of Story.
Warships are allowed free access during a time of war without permission. When not in a time of war, warships require permission from Egypt. Permission has not been requested, let alone granted.
Well, if you view Iran sending warships through the Suez Canal, not during a time of war, which hasn't been done since 1979, on their way to Syria, a "picayune action", you're certainly entitled to. I think it's naïve and possibly short-sighted, but no one can force you to see it as something to be concerned about, even if only mildly. I'd just like to ask you to look at the bigger picture and consider it. Iran doesn't do anything without some ulterior motive somewhere down the line and I don't think it's wise to trust them any further than one can throw a warship.
Oh yea, about sending warships thru the canal on rare occasions?
It is almost like Israel has a timer set, crying about Iranian aggression. Is it every two months, or three? And I'm pretty sure they know about a faction of American populace supporting the idea and pushing its government to engage in it.
It is also why many here feel disappointed at no or less than satisfactory support when it shouldn't be USA's business.
I haven't seen anyone here suggest that the U.S. should make it our business. Did I miss it?
Warships are allowed free access during a time of war without permission. When not in a time of war, warships require permission from Egypt. Permission has not been requested, let alone granted.
How do you know permission has not been requested? Or granted?
Egypt is still claiming Israeli ships don't go thru the canal!
Ships go thru when Egypt says they can and you can't believe a thing Egypt or Israel says otherwise.
I feel the love and I give it back to you in spades!
Quote:
War vessels are only allowed free passage in a time of war with advance written permission from Egypt, which they have not requested.
I love you, but you are misreading Article I, if the canal is open to any belligerent power in time of war, it follows to reason that it is open for transit of war vessels in time of peace.
Quote:
As for the 48 hour rule, you're just speculating.
No, I was quoting. The speculation would be in reference to why they have not made a request as of yet to an operation that was announced in January.
you don't find it, at a minimum, odd, that Iran would put a couple of warships within 48 hours' reach of the entry to the canal before bothering to ask permission to pass through it?
Not really, if the canal is by treaty open to all regardless of type of vessel or whether that vessel is engaged in acts of war, it would appear to me that the request is rather perfunctory.
Quote:
I'm not sure why you don't seem to find this move a potential sign of provocation.
For the same reason that unfriendly naval vessels transit close to their non-friendly neighbors all the time, is it a sort of in your face moment, yeah. Provocation, provoking to do what?
I spent 2 months "provoking" Soviet vessels in the Bearing Sea, there is provoking and then there is provoking, except when it comes to Israel, an Arab with a cold who spits on the side walk in front of the Israeli Embassy is committing damn near and act of war.
I haven't seen anyone here suggest that the U.S. should make it our business. Did I miss it?
I would say so. There are plenty who would never question Israel, but sympathize with it and expect the US government to do so without questioning. The evidence of this isn't just in these forums.
Listening to some people, you'd think the only outcome with Iran has to be full blown war. Everything Iran does that is slightly suspicious is giving them a hard on for war.
International incidents don't necessarily have to lead to all out war.
Iran can be easily contained with it's out of date military. But those who call for an invasion (including proeminent conservative people) are out of their mind. Iran is too big of a bite. With two ongoing wars, it's even more unrealistic to think the West will topple that regime militarily.
The previous president and the current one both pushed the international community into pressuring Iran in hope that change will come from within and it's unlikely that policy will change. With the regime alreay dealing with unrest (for the 2nd time), it's even less likely that all out war is an option, unless you live in a video game.
I would say so. There are plenty who would never question Israel, but sympathize with it and expect the US government to do so without questioning. The evidence of this isn't just in these forums.
And there are plenty of people on this forum who, along with the President of Iran, would question Israel's right to a peaceful existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
