If taking 15 sailors and Marines hostage illegally is not starting a war, then neither is going in and getting them.klassekock wrote:
So you basically mean go in with troops and get them. Sounds like starting a war to me.usmarine2007 wrote:
No. Just go get them. Brits have the resources to do that.klassekock wrote:
ok, usmarine 2007. What is your suggestion to solve this problem with the british sailors then? Nukes?
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-03-31 14:42:13)
ASSUMPTION = SOLDIERS TAKEN IN IRAQI TERRITORIAL WATERS VS IRANIAN TERRITORIAL WATERSusmarine2007 wrote:
If taking 15 sailors and Marines hostage illegally is not starting a war, then neither is going in and getting them.klassekock wrote:
So you basically mean go in with troops and get them. Sounds like starting a war to me.usmarine2007 wrote:
No. Just go get them. Brits have the resources to do that.
THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED THE WAR BY TAKING HOSTAGES!!!!!!!klassekock wrote:
So you basically mean go in with troops and get them. Sounds like starting a war to me.usmarine2007 wrote:
No. Just go get them. Brits have the resources to do that.klassekock wrote:
ok, usmarine 2007. What is your suggestion to solve this problem with the british sailors then? Nukes?
And fadedsteve, I'm not liberal. Hell, i don't even know the right description of one. I just don't think war is the solution to all problems. call it living in a bubble if you like, but you sound a bit biased to me.
Almost like brainwashed...
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-03-31 14:46:45)
Ming, would you not say the SAS are already stretched to capacity given that phony war going on next door?usmarine2007 wrote:
I do not need to write one. The SAS and the SEALS have got that covered.m3thod wrote:
Just go get them?usmarine2007 wrote:
No. Just go get them. Brits have the resources to do that.
Don't ever write an instruction manual.
troll
No. Brits are pulling back anyway right?m3thod wrote:
Ming, would you not say the SAS are already stretched to capacity given that phony war going on next door?usmarine2007 wrote:
I do not need to write one. The SAS and the SEALS have got that covered.m3thod wrote:
Just go get them?
Don't ever write an instruction manual.
troll
Overwhelming force is our doctrine. . . .you go in to win!m3thod wrote:
Ming, would you not say the SAS are already stretched to capacity given that phony war going on next door?usmarine2007 wrote:
I do not need to write one. The SAS and the SEALS have got that covered.m3thod wrote:
Just go get them?
Don't ever write an instruction manual.
troll
LocoSteve, no one go about with that sort of destruction with a few captives...unless you're Israel.
Isreal couldn't take out Hezbollah, the fuck is it going to do with Iran? Let me predict your answer...."nuke the motherfuckers!!!"fadedsteve wrote:
THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED THE WAR BY TAKING HOSTAGES!!!!!!!klassekock wrote:
So you basically mean go in with troops and get them. Sounds like starting a war to me.usmarine2007 wrote:
No. Just go get them. Brits have the resources to do that.
And fadedsteve, I'm not liberal. Hell, i don't even know the right description of one. I just don't think war is the solution to all problems. call it living in a bubble if you like, but you sound a bit biased to me.
Almost like brainwashed...
War isnt always the right solution!! War is aweful, and should only be used when necessary. . .
We dont need to send in troops, we need to send in special forces, and combat air controllers to direct air strikes. . . .
I just will take my nations word over a radical regimes any day of the week. . . Hell, I will take Britains word over Iran's any day of the week. . . . How you guys (Fen in particular) can apologize for Iran is mindnumbing. . .
I can tell you one thing. . . .if the US and Britain wont take out Iran, the Israeli's will!!!
Last edited by m3thod (2007-03-31 14:50:47)
Last edited by Fen321 (2007-03-31 14:52:28)
Erm.... I thought that GPS data took away the assumption.Fen321 wrote:
ASSUMPTION ALERT ASSUMPTION ALERT!!!
Regular troops yes, i would imagine SAS would stay around a lot longer...counter terrorism is what the specialise in the grunts don't.usmarine2007 wrote:
No. Brits are pulling back anyway right?m3thod wrote:
Ming, would you not say the SAS are already stretched to capacity given that phony war going on next door?usmarine2007 wrote:
I do not need to write one. The SAS and the SEALS have got that covered.
troll
What's stopping iran to claim a photoshop?usmarine2007 wrote:
Erm.... I thought that GPS data took away the assumption.Fen321 wrote:
ASSUMPTION ALERT ASSUMPTION ALERT!!!
I know the GPS data does make it look like we have a designated position for either Iraqi / Iranian territorial waters, but if you look into the delineation of maritime boundaries around the Shatt al-Arab water way you will come to find that there is NO SET BOUNDARY! Its been in dispute since the 1930s -- and an attempt in 1975 was unsuccessful in resolving the dispute. Full scale war broke out between the two countries a few years later in 1980 (not over the water way though)usmarine2007 wrote:
Erm.... I thought that GPS data took away the assumption.Fen321 wrote:
ASSUMPTION ALERT ASSUMPTION ALERT!!!
Fen321 wrote:
I know the GPS data does make it look like we have a designated position for either Iraqi / Iranian territorial waters, but if you look into the delineation of maritime boundaries around the Shatt al-Arab water way you will come to find that there is NO SET BOUNDARY! Its been in dispute since the 1930s -- and an attempt in 1975 was unsuccessful in resolving the dispute. Full scale war broke out between the two countries a few years later in 1980 (not over the water way though)usmarine2007 wrote:
Erm.... I thought that GPS data took away the assumption.Fen321 wrote:
ASSUMPTION ALERT ASSUMPTION ALERT!!!
This is the focal point of my issue with the crisis -- one side cannot tell the other they were in the wrong because there is no establish location for where the "wrong" can occur. Hence why I'm apprehensive with jumping to conclusions for EITHER side stating that one side is wrong because of the (perceived) radicalism doesn't make it right.
This is exactly what i mean with being sure of facts with 100%.This is the focal point of my issue with the crisis -- one side cannot tell the other they were in the wrong because there is no establish location for where the "wrong" can occur. Hence why I'm apprehensive with jumping to conclusions for EITHER side stating that one side is wrong because of the (perceived) radicalism doesn't make it right.
Last edited by klassekock (2007-03-31 15:05:19)
How is a statement such as this relevant or constructive in any way?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Also, usmarine - I seriously think you need to seek psychiatric help.
And what about the statements of Usmarine ?Tromboner999 wrote:
How is a statement such as this relevant or constructive in any way?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Also, usmarine - I seriously think you need to seek psychiatric help.
Last edited by Lost Hope (2007-03-31 15:13:17)
Just because someone takes a position contrary to your own doesnt mean they need therapy.Lost Hope wrote:
And what about the statements of Usmarine ?Tromboner999 wrote:
How is a statement such as this relevant or constructive in any way?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Also, usmarine - I seriously think you need to seek psychiatric help.
edit :spelling
It's not the fact that his position is contrary to mine. It is that his position is always "send the troops in" no matter what the situation. I have never seen him post any other opinion. He seems addicted to violence and war. This is not a sign of a healthy mind.Tromboner999 wrote:
Just because someone takes a position contrary to your own doesnt mean they need therapy.Lost Hope wrote:
And what about the statements of Usmarine ?Tromboner999 wrote:
How is a statement such as this relevant or constructive in any way?
edit :spelling
Last edited by Deadmonkiefart (2007-03-31 15:39:11)
I agree with this on almost every point except the last one. Honestly, with their refusal to listen to virtually advise that originates beyond their own border, a case could be made that some of those in power in Iran really could be that stupid.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
First of all, y'all really need to calm down. Second of all I would be shocked if this came to war, although war has started over smaller things. Iran is just pissing countries off because they know that they can with no repercussions. Even if the british soldiers were in Iranian waters, that was definatly no excuse to take them prisoner. However, they do not have a rational government, so this does not surprise me. I really think that the
British should give the Iranians a deadline, that, if not met, would start some serious military action. The Iranian government may be irrational, but they are not THAT stupid.
I wonder if you could possibly be more incorrect.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It's not the fact that his position is contrary to mine. It is that his position is always "send the troops in" no matter what the situation. I have never seen him post any other opinion. He seems addicted to violence and war. This is not a sign of a healthy mind.
1) Don't believe in the HolocaustFen321 wrote:
I'm really curious about this -- what makes you believe that Iran is irrational?