Blockade runners
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: John_H on 8 Jun 2010 23:26 Noddy wrote: > >During the early part of WWII when England stood alone against Germany, they >had a *very* difficult time battling the U-boats in the North Atlantic with >convoy losses being horrendous. Up until November 1941 America was still >officially neutral, but at the same time was sympathetic to the plight of >the English and helped as much as they could. They escorted English convoys >across the Atlantic as far as Greenland, which wasn't really "neutral" under >the terms of any neutrality declaration, knowing full well that if they sent >their warships into international waters were conflict was taking place they >were likely to see some of them sunk as a consequence. > >The Germans, for their part, considered any ship escorting the English >convoys fair game, and as a result a few American vessels were sunk even >though at that stage they were not officially involved in the war. > >Wether that was *legal* in any international sense I can't tell you, but >that's how it was. The only option would've been for America to declare war on Germany, which certainly didn't suit it at the time! Same applies here... it's been claimed that Turkey pressurised the IHH into reflagging the Mavi Marmara to either avoid that situation, or to defray any accusations of Turkey running the blockade, or both. Turkey is entitled to complain bitterly over Turkish casualties but it's clearly not an act of war against Turkey, since it wasn't their ship. Interesting also that Comoros, where the ship is registered, is a member of the League of Arab States, whereas Turkey certainly isn't. Apparently the Arab states have never rescinded their declaration of war on Israel after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, so technically Comoros is already at war with Israel. -- John H
From: Noddy on 9 Jun 2010 03:21 "John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:l22u06d7av64484tv1ao1jp007rb09dgr9(a)4ax.com... > The only option would've been for America to declare war on Germany, > which certainly didn't suit it at the time! Not from the point of view of miltary preparedness, no, but the US Government was looking for *some* way to get into the war on England's side that would be acceptable to the American public and it's isolationist leanings. Getting a few of your ships sunk by the nasty Huns is certainly one way to turn public opinion around. > Same applies here... it's been claimed that Turkey pressurised the IHH > into reflagging the Mavi Marmara to either avoid that situation, or to > defray any accusations of Turkey running the blockade, or both. > Turkey is entitled to complain bitterly over Turkish casualties but > it's clearly not an act of war against Turkey, since it wasn't their > ship. Indeed. > Interesting also that Comoros, where the ship is registered, is a > member of the League of Arab States, whereas Turkey certainly isn't. > Apparently the Arab states have never rescinded their declaration of > war on Israel after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, so technically Comoros > is already at war with Israel. Perhaps the Yids are planning on using that line as a justifiable excuse :) -- Regards, Noddy.
From: John_H on 9 Jun 2010 20:14 Noddy wrote: >"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message >news:l22u06d7av64484tv1ao1jp007rb09dgr9(a)4ax.com... > >> Interesting also that Comoros, where the ship is registered, is a >> member of the League of Arab States, whereas Turkey certainly isn't. >> Apparently the Arab states have never rescinded their declaration of >> war on Israel after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, so technically Comoros >> is already at war with Israel. > >Perhaps the Yids are planning on using that line as a justifiable excuse :) It's the most likely reason why they would've chosen to board that particular ship. Apparently Comoros is also a signatory to the International Criminal Court (Turkey and Israel aren't) which would be a recourse available to them. My guess is they won't take it. If anyone happens to think that either side (muzzies or jews) is looking for a peaceful solution to the conflict then they're living in cloud cuckoo land... and this incident isn't likely to be any exception. If the muzzies were to succeed in having the blockade lifted (which only world opinion against Israel would be likely to achieve) it'd be straight back to making rockets to lob on jews. -- John H
From: Fraser Johnston on 9 Jun 2010 23:44 "John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:ub7k065ctckosjllq2ie7mpuv5611u3f8f(a)4ax.com... > Why can't large ships be disabled by fouling their props with trawled > cables? > > If they could no doubt the Israeli navy would, but if it works for > fishing trawlers (it does on "The Trawlermen") why not large ships? Watch whale wars. It is pretty unreliable. Fraser
From: John_H on 10 Jun 2010 19:37
Brad wrote: > >PS. I really think the Jap whalers should be torpedoed and as for a little >thermonuclear fireworks over the middle east - why not Especially if you happen to think you can avoid the fallout from the latter.... What price would you reckon on for non-irradiated oil stocks? PS: What I really wonder is why bleeding heart lefties always side with Palestinians and whales! :) -- John H |