HeadingNorth Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 If they could operate from anywear in the world why not stay at home ! He didn't say "anywhere in the world." He said "any number of ports in the Gulf region." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Sir the FIFTH fleet is the largest armada this world has ever seen ! And undoublty the most deadliest ! If they could operate from anywear in the world why not stay at home ! But I guess American imprialism won't be as effective as having military bases around the globe ! Fifth fleet is thier for Iran ! Ever since Iranian people rejected western backed dictators an western oil companies they have been the number one enemy in that region ! The fifth fleet is not a static nor standing fleet, it can vary from one carrier stike force to several. The support element from our old Royal Naval base is minimal in terms of US power projection in the gulf, their are dozens of gulf bases. As to Iran, that is Irans call. Act the regional asshat and who knows what will happen, that's not down to a simple yorkshire gardener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 As far as I know that vast majority of the people in Bahrain are in fact foreign workers, so it is difficult to know who is invading who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (Advance warning ... the spellling police are here ) Sir the FIFTH fleet is the largest armada this world has ever seen ! And undoublty the most deadliest ! Actually, it's not the largest Armada this world has ever seen. The Armada of small ships which rescued British Servicemen from Dunkerque numbered over 900 vessels - not counting the RN vessels. Does the 5th Fleet have 900 vessels? (Apart from blood vessels?) If it is indeed 'undoublty the most deadliest' [sic], what weapons systems does it use to ensure that lethality? Comedy? (Your statement sounds like many made by Wilfrid Pickles: "I'm in the mudiddle! Most indubitobubly I am!") If they could operate from anywear in the world why not stay at home ! Could it be that they can't get from 'at home' to somewhere many thousands of miles away in a few minutes? Or even in a few days? Are you aware that the Royal Navy (in its prime) had ships scattered all around the world? Where were they planning to invade? Everywhere? But I guess American imprialism won't be as effective as having military bases around the globe ! I don't know anything about 'imprialism'. Is that something like priapism? - If so, 'the Gut' is much cleaner nowadays than it was 45 years ago, so they might as well forget going to Malta. Are you aware that there are USAF personnel stationed in the UK? - Perhaps they're trying to find out what the Brits are doing with all those 'fission chips'? Fifth fleet is thier for Iran ! I did ask you (Post #14) to post the evidence you use to support your allegation that the US intends to invade Iran. Exclamation marks aren't evidence. I ask you again: "What evidence do you have to support your claim that the US intends to invade Iran within the next year?" Ever since Iranian people rejected western backed dictators an western oil companies they have been the number one enemy in that region ! Foreign Oil companies operating in Iran include: Gazprom Petronas Shell Total Elf Aquitaine Japex PetroCanada Ultramar Chevron, and Coastal Petronas is Malaysian, Gazprom is Russian and Japex is Japanese. All the others are 'Western Oil Companies'. What makes you think that '[The] Iranian people rejected ...western oil companies'? 7 out of 10 foreign oil companies operating in Iran are 'western oil companies'. Doesn't sound like 'rejection' to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 No sign of British diplomats and SAS teams going over there to meet with the opposition like they did in Libya. I suppose some barking authoritarian regimes are more palatable to our Government than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 im sure it is against International law that a foreign force is used to quell what have been overwhelmingly peaceful protests by the population of Bahrain, But the "just and Fair" Government of the USA have insisted this is NOT a invasion! 1000 troops used from a Foreign country is NOT invasion if you are a ally to the USA.! http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/bahrain-usa-invasion-idUSWNA351920110314 It's not an invasion as they are there at the request of the governing powers of Bahrain. It is very worrying though, what legitimacy do these foreign troops have in quelling any unrest? I think it's a case of one lot of ruling Sunnis helping out their buddies another ruling Sunni monarch and will only inflame tensions with the Shia majority who will see them as stooges of their Sunni rulers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 They clearly aren't going to intervene in Bahrain. Even diplomatic protests could result in higher oil prices or shortages. Lets not forget that the 9/11 attack was largely planned and carried out by Saudis, and the largest financers and supporters of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine are the Saudis. Our governments are running scared of the oil rich Gulf monarchs. Then there is the added complication that because of the sectarian Sunni/Shia element and the proximity of Iran, this thing could get well out of hand. Libya on the other hand, is a regime on the brink of collapse with no significant support anywhere. With a small push, Gaddafi will probably fall, but left to his own devices, he may regain control, after which his first action would almost certainly be to engage in widespread massacring of his own people, before turning his attention to how he can get revenge on the countries which encouraged his opponents to risk their lives, yet lacked the conviction to actually provide them with any meaningful support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Talk and inaction in Libya and double standards in Bahrain. World leaders are morally bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I appreciate your opinion, but (and perhaps I tend slightly towards 'isolationism') I feel we (and indeed every country) should keep its nose out of other countries' civil wars. Has there ever been a civil war which has been resolved (satisfactorily) by outside intervention? Mexico's role in the US Civil War (Cinco de Mayo)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Who interfered in the American civil war? France. Unsurprisingly, since the purpose was to rid America from les Anglais at a time when there was -again and still- no love lost between the two realms. I'll not comment about whether this involvement "resolved (the American Civil War) satisfactorily by outside (French) intervention", as I do not believe it was so extensive as to prove pivotal. But it certainly helped Americans a fair bit. For the little story, this is why/where the volunteer-based 'Lafayette' French air force squadron got its name from Wrong war, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.