3 local ships extend deployment amid Gaza conflict (US warships turn around)
Source: Pilot Online.com
Three Hampton Roads-based warships reversed course this weekend and were steaming back to the eastern Mediterranean Sea today as U.S. officials kept a close eye on the escalating conflict between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza.
The amphibious warships Iwo Jima, New York and Gunston Hall were scheduled to return next week but instead will remain on standby, said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Servello, a Navy spokesman.
Sources told CNN that the ships could be needed in the event Americans are evacuated from Israel in the coming days, though officials said evacuation remains a remote possibility.
“I really want to emphasize that no active mission planning is underway,” Servello said. “This really is about due diligence.”
Read more: http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/3-navy-ships-extend-deployment-amid-israelgaza-conflict
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
still_one
(92,192 posts)The case here, and no I am not trying to minimize what happened to the Liberty, but there were surrounding countries ready to destroy Israel.
This particular conflict is not even similar
http://www.sixdaywar.org/uss-liberty.asp
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)We are now going to have the Iwo Jima, New York and Gunston Hall (like the USS Liberty) in international waters near Israel at a time of belligerence.
The problem with the Liberty is that she and her crew did not have the protection of another nearby ship.
Our Naval Command should be smart enough to learn from the experience so that no other American ship would be sent by itself and be exposed to an extended "accidental" attack.
The Liberty was outside of Israeli waters but was monitoring air traffic and radio communications. Until the time of the attack, we had no information that Israel would attack one of our ships. It was a mistake to send the Liberty, by itself, to the area.
"Israel was actually fighting for its survival in the 67 war."
Sadat parking tanks in the Sinai for three days does not make an existential threat. Given that it was Israel that initiated the war by attacking said tanks, and pretty easily pressed right through to the Canal zone, saying Israel was "fighting for its survival" is just a lie.
if you want to try to argue that Israel was in its right to do all that, go ahead, but enough of this "helpless infant struggling for life" horse shit mythology, okay?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)was it vice versa?
A time line from a reliable source would help.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Israel launched Operation Focus against the Egyptians on June 5. The Liberty came under fire on June 8.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)still_one
(92,192 posts)mobilizing his troops along the border.
Israel would have had great difficulty if Egypt attacked first.
That 6 day war in no way justifies what happened to the Liberty
However, there was a good reason to believe that Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries were united in seeing the destruction of Israel at that time.
In 1973, Israel did delay, and sustained many casualties because of that delay.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)still_one
(92,192 posts)damage done by george bush can be undone, and they can move forward
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Article saying Nasser had planned the War:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/gat1967.pdf
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MF1967.html
Articles that point out, that the Egyptian movement of troops was to little to be any threat to Israel AND Israel knew that.
http://www.deliberation.info/the-six-day-war/
Report that Sadat (Egyptian President in 1973) planned the Yom Kipper war, to defeat his own army as well as revenge for 1967:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Boy, I'm just on a roll tonight.
We can't forget the role the USSR played i nthe debacle, either;
http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/soviets.asp
Although it is not clear that the Soviets actually desired a war, a recent book by Gideon Remez and Isabella Ginor, Foxbats over Dimona: The Soviets' Nuclear Gamble in the Six-Day War, makes the controversial contention that the Soviet Union intentionally sparked the war in order to justify an attack against Israel's nuclear facility in Dimona. Israel's rapid and overwhelming success undermined the plan, the authors argue.
The bolded text is why Nasser was making fast alliances and moving his forces - not because he planned to attack Israel, but because the USSR had told Nasser that Israel was planning to attack. At the time, Egypt and Syria were united as one country; the United Arab republic.
still_one
(92,192 posts)accurate sources of what happened.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I was careful, I referenced comments from BOTH sides on the issue of who really started the 1967 war, the longer papers point out the arguments that it appears to be Egypt and Syria but Israel attacked first. In many ways that explains the rapid pace of the Israeli Victory, it did NOT attack an army set for a Defensive Battle, but one set for an Offensive battle.
When you plan an attack you want your supplies as close to the front as possible, so it can follow the army on the march. In a defensive situation, you want the supplies further back, so when you retreat you retreat to your base of supply.
If the Egyptians wanted to attack, its supplies for its army would have been right with the Army, to follow into Israel. When the Israeli Army attacked, the Egyptian Army was pushed back, leaving its supplies behind. With no supplies to fall back on, you get a rapid defeat (This seems to be the main reason for the Russian loses in June through September 1941, Stalin seems to have planned to attack the Germans in Poland, but Hitler attacked first).
The problem is Israel has NEVER claimed it took much supplies in the 1967 War, it captured a lot of equipment, but Israel never claimed to have captured to much in supplies. Which implies it recovered a lot of vehicles and front line equipment, but little fuel, spare parts and food.
Thus it is hard to determine what happened in the 1967 War, Israel could have been a true preemptive attack, and forced the Egyptian army to abandoned their supplies OR the Egyptians never had any supplies to lose. Either way, the Egyptian Army was a quick defeat in 1967.
The Article I cited that clearly states Nasser had planned the War:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/gat1967.pdf
On the other hand, the CounterPunch Article in relation to the 1973 Yom Kippur war tends to follow the following scenario
1. The Egyptian Army attacked, and then brought its supplies with them,. Correct action of an attacking army.
2. When the Egyptian Army was on the defensive, it kept falling back on its supplies
In the CounterPunch Article the attack was halted by Sadat but that is a separate issue, read the Counterpunch article for WHY the Egyptian army stopped. My point is in the Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian Army acted like an army should in both is offensive and defensive phases. The Egyptian Army did NOT basically dissolved in 1973, like it had in 1967 for it had supplies to fall back on. Supplies just behind the front line that the Army could retreat to and resupply itself. That is normal for any Army on the defensive. That was NOT the situation in 1967, but it was the situation in 1973.
Thus it is possible for the 1967 War to be either a preemptive war by Israel to prevent an Egyptian Attack, OR a simple war of aggression that Israel planed and executed (and an argument can be made it could have been BOTH, Israel, seeing an attack by Egypt then implemented its own offensive war as a preemptive war instead of an offensive war).
On the other hand, the 1973 Yom Kippur war, makes no sense. Egypt had pieced the Israeli defenses, the passes mentioned in the article were a better defensive position, but unmanned at the time of the attack. A quick march to those passes would have opened up Israel to a full blown Egyptian attack, thus the Israeli decision to attack Syria instead makes no sense UNLESS Israel already knew those passes would NOT be taken. i.e. the Egyptian army would NOT move Eastward and actually threaten Israel.
Something was going on in the 1973 War, as the Counterpunch article points. The actions of the Sadat and Israeli makes no sense, unless they was an understanding between Israel, Sadat and the US as to roughly what will happen. Sadat thus could appear to be helping Syria, while Israel destroyed the Syrian Army, then the Egyptian army could be saved by the US intervention but only after the Egyptian army had been defeated. Sadat came out on top, he fought a war with Israel, the other generals were discredited for their defeat in that war, he knew he would get the Suez Canal opened up which would improve his support in Western Europe (and bring with it money to expand the Canal to permit even larger ships to use the Canal).
One of the concepts people have a problem with is the concept of Winning by Losing. Sometime, just showing up and losing is all you need to win what you are fighting for. Sadat wanted the Suez canal open, what he did military showed to the world that the Suez canal was a bad peace line and thus Israel could abandoned it (In many ways, to many people in the US and Israel had come to see the canal as a military impediment that Israel had to hold, something people with actual military training said was rot. Thus people had to see that the Canal was NOT the barrier people had come to think it was between 1967 and 1973).
Thus Sadat saw more in Fighting and LOSING then he saw in Fighting and Winning. The most Egypt would get was the Sinai, Syria would get less territory, but territory that had value as farm land, not the desert lands of the Sinai. i.e. the VALUE of the land Syria would recover would be greater to Syria then the Sinai was to Egypt. The big thing for Sadat was the Suez Canal, which he did win in the Yom Kippur war (it was re-opened soon afterward, then the rest of the Sinai returned, with restrictions as to how many Egyptian Military units were allowed in the Sinai, but only after Camp David during the Carter Administration).
Thus Sadat won everything he immediately wanted when he went to war, the opening of the Suez Canal, even while he lost the war. The Counter punch Article goes into other issues of why Sadat was willing to lose the war, for by losing his position inside Egypt was strengthened.
still_one
(92,192 posts)still_one
(92,192 posts)It was Nasser, NOT Sadat who ordered the Egyptian troops to the border.
When Nasser ordered UN forces that were stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border out, that was the first warning. In May Egypt ordered
a blockade of Israel through the Straits of Tiran. That was the second warning. At the same time Syria increased its border clashes with Israel along the golan Heights and mobilized its troops.
In May Nasser and Hussein signed a mutual defense pack, followed by one with Iraq. In June the Arab states began mobilizing their troops while Nasser and other Egyptian leader intensified their anti-Israeli rhetoric and called for a total destruction against Israel.
Egypt had their weapons supplied from the Soviets, including plans.
It is because Israel could NOT survive a first strike that they took a pre-emptive strike against Egypt
At that time it wasn't just tanks that Egypt had, they had Soviet planes, which were also destroyed before they could take off
It isn't mythology.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Think from Nasser's perspective.
Your major ally has just handed you information that a nation that invaded yours ten years ago, is planning to do so again. do you
A) wad it up and throw it back in your ally's face, saying "lol, no, they would never, they're too nice!"
or
B) take it seriously and muster your forces in preparation?
obviously, you'd take B. Which is what Nasser did.
Look at what you just said;
In May Nasser and Hussein signed a mutual defense pack, followed by one with Iraq.
Do you know what a defense pact means? Do you understand the idea of such a thing?
This is followed by Nasser moving forces into the Sinai and warning the UN. And they just sort of sat there for three days. Maybe they were hoping that the Israelis would be blinded by hte sunlight reflecting off the MiG cockpits?
Now, of course, Israel at the meantime isn't aware of the false report from the Soviets to the Egyptians (i've heard claims that it WASN'T false, but, well, i'm going with it being fake, due to lack of strong evidence). Israel sees Egypt communicating with its allies and moving troops, and.. .yeah, I don't really blame Israel for getting a little freaked about that.
Too bad both sides of this pending conflict had both vowed to not communicate with the other, huh? There was no call from Egypt going "Hey Israel, this thing the Russians gave us, uh... what the fuck?" nor was there a call from Israel to Egypt going "Man, Nasser, we see tanks out there, what are you doing?"
As I said. If you want to argue that Israel thought it was justified, whatever, like I said, I can't blame Israel from getting freaked out over it. But nor can I blame Egypt for getting freaked over the intel they had. And in the tense situation that resulted, it was Israel that fired the first shot and coasted to an easy victory in the Sinai and Golan. Israel's survival was never at stake.
still_one
(92,192 posts)suffered for it, though they were more equipped in 1973 than in 1967.
Probably the most amazing thing was the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt initiated by Sadat. At that time it was considered that peace between Egypt and Israel was the least likely to happen.
That is why when george bush became president, the possibility for peace was put back 40 years. Every President since nixon had tried to facilitate a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel. It was george bush who could have taken over where Bill Clinton left, but instead did just the opposite, and left the possibility for a two state solution even more distant
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)My take is that Bill Clinton was more interested in looking good on the news, than he was with actually working to broker a useful peace agreement. Bush, of course, is an apocalyptic christian - "Israel's gotta be there so Jesus can come back!" so you're right, that was eight years of the US being fucking useless in that department. And i'm a big fan of Obama, but I'm not sure he's hte guy to change the record.
hack89
(39,171 posts)said by Nassar a week before the war and just after he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships - an act of war.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)A ship they had to have known was American since they were able to jam it's radio signals and American ships used different signals than Egyptian ones.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)strafing attacks and torpedo runs.
As said by the survivors,
"The Israeli forces attacked without warning and without attempting to contact us. Thirty four Americans were killed in the attack and another 174 were wounded."
http://www.gtr5.com/
The survivors are not anti-semitic, and no one can legitimately charge them with being anti-semitic. Also from the same web site:
No Navy ship should ever be alone and relatively unarmed near Israeli waters during hostilities.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Am I right? What did I win? 
King_David
(14,851 posts)A quick google search of USS Liberty brings up so many filthy antisemitic websites.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)never again send a relatively unarmed intelligence ship without protection from additional U.S. ships to the Mediterranean during hostilities.
(2) You say, "A quick google search of USS Liberty brings up so many filthy antisemitic websites."
The first web site that can be found with Google, for the USS Liberty Memorial, seems to not be a "filthy antisemitic" website. As indicated on its first page:
"The USS Liberty Memorial web site abhors the racist and extreme positions taken by antiSemitic, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theorist and other such groups which often seek to identify with us and to usurp our story as their own. We have no connection with and do not support or encourage support from any of these groups including National Alliance, National Vanguard, The New Order, National Socialists, The French Connection, Liberty Lobby, American Free Press, Republic Broadcasting, USS Liberty Radio Hour, Storm Front or other such groups. We wish harm to no one and encourage social justice and equality for everyone; we seek only accountability for the criminal acts perpetrated against us and can do that without help from hate-mongers."
"On the Israeli side, the group of pro-Israel, anti-American critics of our story, while small, persists in launching loud, vicious ad hominem attacks on anyone who attempts to discuss the deliberateness of the attack. These anti-American apologists refuse to discuss the facts of the case. Instead, they rely on propaganda and charge anyone who questions the Israeli position with being antiSemitic."
"For detailed and authoritative accounts of the power and influence of the pro-Israel lobby, please see The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by Mearsheimer and Walt and The Pro-Israel Lobby by Edward Herman."
http://www.gtr5.com/
If you can show me the error of my ways and how this web site is antisemitic, I would appreciate it.
Likewise, if you can show me how no lessons should be learned from the attack on the Liberty and how lightly armed intelligence ships should not be accompanied by one or more additional ships when in the Mediterranean near hostilities, it would also be appreciated.
mallard
(569 posts)... is indeed one apt to "rely on propaganda and charge anyone who questions the Israeli position with being anti Semitic," you'll get no response acknowledging the legitimacy of your points. The arrogant approach goes with [literally] occupied territory and allowance to wax threatening is assumed.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)'Israel was the chief beneficiary of the event, with Zionists in every step of the equation. Have you seen the collapse of WTC?'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=307506
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)The poster said at #12 that you would not give a response acknowledging the legitimacy of my points. I agree with that.
Also as I said even higher up at #18, "I agree that the '6 day war in no way justifies what happened to the Liberty'."
Are you trying to bait me into saying something that will allow you to falsely claim that I am anti-semitic?
Was the poster wrong at #12 when he expressed his opinion you were "one apt to 'rely on propaganda and charge anyone who questions the Israeli position with being anti Semitic'?"
Is that true? Do you call other posters anti-semitic? The USS Liberty was a relatively unarmed radar and radio-listening ship outside of Israeli waters at the time of the 6-day war when it and its crew were repeatedly attacked while flying three U.S. flags. Is it true that you "charge anyone who questions the Israeli position with being anti Semitic"?
What, in your view, is the "Israeli position"? To avoid being called anti-semitic, can I take that position too?
King_David
(14,851 posts)I take absolutely NOTHING s/he says seriously .
It's conspiracy hateful bigotrd shit !!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)On what basis, other than your upbringing, do you think that this is all about you?
King_David
(14,851 posts)When I get tired and cranky people start irritating me ... I find taking a break does wonders ...
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)King_David
(14,851 posts)'Israel was the chief beneficiary of the event, with Zionists in every step of the equation. Have you seen the collapse of WTC?'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=307506
BIGOTED CONSPIRACY HATEFUL SICK SHIT !!!!
Franker65
(299 posts)Still, I really don't think there's any possibility of Americans needing to be evacuated. There's only so much sporadic and inaccurate rocket fire is going to achieve.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It's not as if the Palestinians are a real military threat. Israel's armed forces are VASTLY superior.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)While their defensive capabilities are pretty good, the 3 ships mentioned have very limited offensive capabilities and don't carry enough troops (a Marine battalion) to have a significant impact on land operations. Depending on the aviation complement, the offensive power of the 3 ships would be limited to attack helicopters and possibly 4-6 Harrier jets, which are light attack aircraft with limited air to air capabilities.
It has long been US policy to send an amphibious task force to areas where US citizens might need to be evacuated
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)
icymist
(15,888 posts)They're serving the US and they're being sent to the ME. Godspeed to you young men and women going into harms way. Godspeed your return out of there! And since I've always been a Navy person: God Bless our Navy!
icymist
(15,888 posts)The men and women serving on these ships... what are they to everybody? Throwaways? I pray for them, that are going into harms way. Please, I pray that they may return and come home to their loved ones. May no harm come to any one of these, our finest. May they see any danger before it become apparent and take action in order to ovoid it.
If you are wondering, I have friends out there.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)is not sufficient time to allow for any response. Please exercise some patience.
I wish them the very best as well, having served 22+ years in the USAF (and was involved in the 2006 Lebanon/Beirut evacuations, albeit from the comfort of Cyprus).
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And the "truth" about the 1967 War.
Those discussions would be enormously productive right now.
