I wouldn't say they're so much 'irrational' as fanatical. Basically you have a man leading a fairly powerful nation with significant armed forces believing that the actions he takes are sanctioned by Allah (sp?) and as such he will be guaranteed success when he attacks 'infidels' since it is Allah's will. I'm not saying that he will necessarily act upon those beliefs, but there is also a distinct possibility that he might and I imagine the results of such actions would be disastrous for all involved.Fen321 wrote:
I'm really curious about this -- what makes you believe that Iran is irrational?
I state the facts as I see them.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
Open your fucking eyes then.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I state the facts as I see them.usmarine2007 wrote:
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.
The only thing I worry about in this thing is for
THE US TO STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!
Seriously, Iran hates the US more than the UK and if the US starts saying it'll defend their ally or threatening the Iraninans, they may do something just to spite them.
So PLEASE US whitehouse, stay out of it, we can handle our own problems.
I still don't understand why Iran is playing this silly childs game with us, I mean, changing the coordinates so they were in their waters when there are the most sophisticated positioning devices installed on those ships?
THE US TO STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!
Seriously, Iran hates the US more than the UK and if the US starts saying it'll defend their ally or threatening the Iraninans, they may do something just to spite them.
So PLEASE US whitehouse, stay out of it, we can handle our own problems.
I still don't understand why Iran is playing this silly childs game with us, I mean, changing the coordinates so they were in their waters when there are the most sophisticated positioning devices installed on those ships?
Bush already said he backs the UK, as did the Germans. It seems that Ahmadinejad does not know who he's fucking with.ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
The only thing I worry about in this thing is for
THE US TO STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT!
Seriously, Iran hates the US more than the UK and if the US starts saying it'll defend their ally or threatening the Iraninans, they may do something just to spite them.
So PLEASE US whitehouse, stay out of it, we can handle our own problems.
I still don't understand why Iran is playing this silly childs game with us, I mean, changing the coordinates so they were in their waters when there are the most sophisticated positioning devices installed on those ships?
The aggressor will have been Iran. The UK has provided proof that they were in Iraq territorial waters; Iran has provided nothing except that they say it was so. And lose the "perceived" argument. We are going by the UNs aknowledged 12 mile limit, here. The capturing of another nations soldiers while they were acting within the scop of their duty and not acting directly hostile to the country in question is An Act Of War. Wars have begun for reasons such as this.Fen321 wrote:
This isn't 1979 -- because they are NOT DIPLOMATIC PERSONAL INSIDE A DESIGNATED EMBASSY!!! So essentially we can't really have a repeat of this scenario.
UK troops do not have the "right" to encroach on "perceived" territorial waters anymore than Iran has the right to go into "perceived" Iraqi territorial waters.
All the bashing i see over Iran is rather comical really -- I understand some of you have this preconceived notion of military superiority over anyone that isn't your ally, but for god's sake put this notion down for a minute and act like a rational human being. That means ACT ON REASON not emotion. Both governments are trying to resolve this via Diplomatic means and if its take to a different level it will be initiated by the UK -- guess whom is now the aggressor?
Do I think Iran wants a war with Brittan? I doubt it. My personal thought is that they think they can get away with publicly embarrasing the UK, since if the UK uses force, they will scream about the 'west' fighting muslims. It IS all political. The UK, right now, would be fully justified in laying waste to the entire country of Iran.
Yes, just over 15 sailors.
I accept backing, but if they start trying to solve it it'll get blown out of proportion even though they would be trying to do a good thing.
1. I thought their dispute was over placing the holocaust in such a position that any questioning of specific numbers is looked down upon for you are labeled a denier...?usmarine2007 wrote:
1) Don't believe in the HolocaustFen321 wrote:
I'm really curious about this -- what makes you believe that Iran is irrational?
2) Want to completely annihilate another race and country
3) Said they had the cure for AIDS
4) Keep fucking with the UN over nukes
2. The annihilation of another race is something that was never stated by them and has been dispute by many:
-- Granted -- if this is not the case how is it any different then labeling them part of an axis of "evil" whom logically we have the inherent need to get rid of? Unless evil is something we want to keep around and stare at...According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was "this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
3. Cure for aids....not sure how this fits into a countries government and their perception of handling international affairs.
4. They keep fucking with the UN over the right to Enrich Uranium. This does not equate to the right to make nukes, but eh its a possibility maybe next time NPT treaty will be more specific with this regard.
Now, I definitely see where you are coming from with this, but how is the belief that Allah is going to guide you any different then statements which follow the lines of God Bless <insert country name>. If God is blessing a particular country would it not be safe to guess that God would be approving of their actions -- and in some people's view guiding them?mcgid1 wrote:
I wouldn't say they're so much 'irrational' as fanatical. Basically you have a man leading a fairly powerful nation with significant armed forces believing that the actions he takes are sanctioned by Allah (sp?) and as such he will be guaranteed success when he attacks 'infidels' since it is Allah's will. I'm not saying that he will necessarily act upon those beliefs, but there is also a distinct possibility that he might and I imagine the results of such actions would be disastrous for all involved.Fen321 wrote:
I'm really curious about this -- what makes you believe that Iran is irrational?
Any country should not rely on religious underpinnings to guarantee success so I can agree with you on that part.
Hey Fen. Say you were one of the prisoners. What would you want done?
Well, lets look at the facts then:usmarine2007 wrote:
Open your fucking eyes then.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I state the facts as I see them.usmarine2007 wrote:
I wonder if you could possibly be more incorrect.
usmarine2007 wrote:
So when does the SAS go in?
usmarine2007 wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_re_mi_ea/british_seized_iran
This will never end. Go get your people back.
usmarine2007 wrote:
Go get your people. Don't let them rot there for a year.
usmarine2007 wrote:
Go get your fucking people. Tony said today he would not negotiate with Iran. So what is the point of all this BS? Kick the tires and light the fires my UK friends.
usmarine2007 wrote:
Deploma..........I can't even say it anymore. Go get your fucking countrymen.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
http://www.iranvajahan.net/english/pict … 29..23.jpg
usmarine2007 wrote:
I say they send in the Royal Marines to rescue them, then bomb the piss out of Iran.sergeriver wrote:
In order to protect the 15 captured Brits, US and UK should negotiate with Iran and exchange prisoners. Their safety is the most important issue here. Let's hope this ends without problems.
usmarine2007 wrote:
Surgical Strike anyone?fadedsteve wrote:
If Iran threatens to harm these troops, and sets irrational conditions for release, then we are dealing with a very voilatile situation.
And let me guess what your oh so intelligent comback will be:usmarine2007 wrote:
I meant a few Tornadoes or some SAS.fadedsteve wrote:
I'm afraid your right!! We (the USA) are looking for any excuse to bomb those Iranian facilities/army!!usmarine2007 wrote:
Surgical Strike anyone?
Not too mention the reaction from Britain if indeed these troops are harmed. . . War is certainly on the table at this point. I mean the UK wouldnt sit idle if their troops were killed/tortured in any way. It would be a gross act of war by the Iranians that would command a harsh response.
If you want people to think you have more than one opinion then start posting more than one opinion.usmarine2007 wrote:
Yawn.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-03-31 16:20:14)
The difference between "God bless <country>" and what the leaders of Iran are doing is that the first phrase is normally one hoping that the nation prospers where as Iran's version is in hopes of converting or killing all those who do not believe in Islam in the name of Allah. In the end, it comes down to the intent behind the words as opposed to the words themself.Fen321 wrote:
Now, I definitely see where you are coming from with this, but how is the belief that Allah is going to guide you any different then statements which follow the lines of God Bless <insert country name>. If God is blessing a particular country would it not be safe to guess that God would be approving of their actions -- and in some people's view guiding them?mcgid1 wrote:
I wouldn't say they're so much 'irrational' as fanatical. Basically you have a man leading a fairly powerful nation with significant armed forces believing that the actions he takes are sanctioned by Allah (sp?) and as such he will be guaranteed success when he attacks 'infidels' since it is Allah's will. I'm not saying that he will necessarily act upon those beliefs, but there is also a distinct possibility that he might and I imagine the results of such actions would be disastrous for all involved.Fen321 wrote:
I'm really curious about this -- what makes you believe that Iran is irrational?
Any country should not rely on religious underpinnings to guarantee success so I can agree with you on that part.
You said always. In this case, I say go get them. Yawn.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2007-03-31 16:21:26)
Well, I must only read the threads where you say that kind of thing.usmarine2007 wrote:
You said always. In this case, I say go get them.
Its called selective reading.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Well, I must only read the threads where you say that kind of thing.usmarine2007 wrote:
You said always. In this case, I say go get them.
If i were one of the prisoners -- I'm not sure they have the ability to shape the outcome anymore than I would if i were in their situation. I would want a diplomatic end to the situation since if war were to break out over the issue I would be the first one to find out via a gunshot wound to the head.usmarine2007 wrote:
Hey Fen. Say you were one of the prisoners. What would you want done?
oh and knowing how other countries in the west have been treating detained enemies and not granting them legal rights -- I'd be shitting my pants and expecting the same treatment.
Last edited by Fen321 (2007-03-31 16:26:26)
Yes, I select what I read. So what? We all select what we read. We would do nothing but read forum posts all day if we did not. You post in the threads I find of interest. And in my experience you post one of two things in those threads - either a variation on "Send the troops in" or a variation on "Yawn".usmarine2007 wrote:
Its called selective reading.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Well, I must only read the threads where you say that kind of thing.usmarine2007 wrote:
You said always. In this case, I say go get them.
Okay seriously, you guys need to stop butting heads--it doesn't look cool. Valid points have been made. The territorial boundaries have been disputed since the 1930s, so it's not clear-cut who was in whose water--and Iran knows this. UK had ships patrolling for pirates and god-knows what else along said disputed territory, running routine missions that up until this point had no incidents. Then Iran decides to fuck with us and take 15 UK sailors and marines against their will, and are probably forcing them to make statements that they crossed into this disputed territory into Iranian waters.
Seriously, we don't know how these sailors are doing, only what Iran is feeding us. Their goal is gaining leverage in getting breathing room on previously existing sanctions due in no small part to their Uranium enrichment programs. They say that they pursue it merely for power--but we have just that, their word, and we've told them to cut the shit, and we're already punishing them. They figure an easy way to weasel out of it is using these sailors and marines as bargaining chips. So, there are two ways to look at this:
1) Iran is trying to fuck with the UK and remove sanctions by coercion using these soldiers as bargaining chips--a low blow even from them. I'd discuss the 444 day hostage crisis of 1979-1980, but I'm not familiar enough with it to make a convincing argument.
2) They're just putting on a spectacular show so the UK drops a shitload of bombs, maybe a hostage rescue mission, then scream to the international community that the UK bullied them and get a sympathy card. Yeah, bullied, they're primitive enough to use that term.
Its like an attention whore: as long as you get the camera or spotlight on you, you don't care what happens, so much as you stay in the spotlight and make everyone else look bad. Iran is treading some murky water here, and if things get out of hand, they're sincerely wish that they hadn't Fucked with the UK.
Seriously, we don't know how these sailors are doing, only what Iran is feeding us. Their goal is gaining leverage in getting breathing room on previously existing sanctions due in no small part to their Uranium enrichment programs. They say that they pursue it merely for power--but we have just that, their word, and we've told them to cut the shit, and we're already punishing them. They figure an easy way to weasel out of it is using these sailors and marines as bargaining chips. So, there are two ways to look at this:
1) Iran is trying to fuck with the UK and remove sanctions by coercion using these soldiers as bargaining chips--a low blow even from them. I'd discuss the 444 day hostage crisis of 1979-1980, but I'm not familiar enough with it to make a convincing argument.
2) They're just putting on a spectacular show so the UK drops a shitload of bombs, maybe a hostage rescue mission, then scream to the international community that the UK bullied them and get a sympathy card. Yeah, bullied, they're primitive enough to use that term.
Its like an attention whore: as long as you get the camera or spotlight on you, you don't care what happens, so much as you stay in the spotlight and make everyone else look bad. Iran is treading some murky water here, and if things get out of hand, they're sincerely wish that they hadn't Fucked with the UK.
Do you guys honestly not even want your troops back? Your countrymen? Shit am I glad to be here. I wouldn't care if our boys were strolling through the Iranian presidential palace, the minute they were snatched, I'd rest assured that the best of the best would be airborne and en route to pick up the men I pay taxes for. WTF is wrong with you people? Your brethren are being tortured. And all you wanna do is argue about this moral bullshit. How do you recover a downed pilot? Send a letter to the embassy asking for him back? I'm glad those captives can't see this forum, it doesn't inspire much hope to say the least.
If you are the captives how would you plead? Innocent or guilty of being illegally abducted?
I am kind of amazed at the cavalier attitude of some of the people here.mcjagdflieger wrote:
Do you guys honestly not even want your troops back? Your countrymen? Shit am I glad to be here. I wouldn't care if our boys were strolling through the Iranian presidential palace, the minute they were snatched, I'd rest assured that the best of the best would be airborne and en route to pick up the men I pay taxes for. WTF is wrong with you people? Your brethren are being tortured. And all you wanna do is argue about this moral bullshit. How do you recover a downed pilot? Send a letter to the embassy asking for him back? I'm glad those captives can't see this forum, it doesn't inspire much hope to say the least.
I bet you would be calm and collected. . .totally coherent to your surroundings. . .fucking hypocrite!Fen321 wrote:
If i were one of the prisoners -- I'm not sure they have the ability to shape the outcome anymore than I would if i were in their situation. I would want a diplomatic end to the situation since if war were to break out over the issue I would be the first one to find out via a gunshot wound to the head.usmarine2007 wrote:
Hey Fen. Say you were one of the prisoners. What would you want done?
oh and knowing how other countries in the west have been treating detained enemies and not granting them legal rights -- I'd be shitting my pants and expecting the same treatment.
BULLSHIT! If you were a captured sailor, you would be worried about your family, and your life, and CONCERNED with the people WHOM could save your life!! i.e. the fucking SAS!!
I'll bet you would be concerned with frigging gitmo (sarcasm*)(if you were sitting around in an Iranian jail)last thing you would be worried about is some foreigner!!!. . . btw that place (gitmo) is a fucking Hilton Hotel compared with the shit those British sailors have to deal with you insensitive prizick!!
Those detained enemies ARE enemies of the state!! We obtained that personel through battle, not through chicken shit hostage taking. . . . legal rights/same treatment. . .are you fucking kidding me. . .those assholes were taken off the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq, they DONT enjoy the honor of American law in their cases whatsoever!
They are enemy combatants and ENJOY military tribunals. . .nothing better!
side note: I wish I could take the Newcastle bottle Im drinking right now and bash it over your insensitive faces!! THERE ARE PEOPLE DEALING WITH BEING HOSTAGES RIGHT NOW!!! There are families in Britain with their sons and daughters in Iranian custody, and your crass remarks are. . . ..its the USA/UK's fault. . . .FUCK YOU!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-04-01 03:36:51)
Send in the YORKS!!
Last edited by LostFate (2007-04-01 03:43:16)
If those were American Soliders that Iran had refused to return the US would have sent in special forces and the blackhawks yesterday.
Our duty should be to get them back as quickly as possible. We should say "give us them back or we'll bomb you back to the stone age."
Our duty should be to get them back as quickly as possible. We should say "give us them back or we'll bomb you back to the stone age."
i say we pull out of afgan and iraq an go full scale invasion on there ass!
I consider myself liberal, and I never really agreed with the US invading Iraq, but I really wonder about the people of this part of the world. As much as America gets blamed for warmongering, the Middle-East hasn't had lasting peace since....the beginning of recorded history, if even then?
I'm not one to wish for war, but Iran is obviously looking for trouble, and if Britain and its allies have to get their hands dirty to get their soldiers back, more power to 'em...
I'm not one to wish for war, but Iran is obviously looking for trouble, and if Britain and its allies have to get their hands dirty to get their soldiers back, more power to 'em...
