BF2S Forums Diplomacy FTW!! (British Sailors Freed)

Jesus, you guys scare me. Wouldn't military action make things worse? Wouldn't the middle east hate us more and more terrorist attacks occur?

It also scares me how many Americans are living up to the "shoot before thinking" stereotype. Something I really thought didn't exist.

Just for a quick interjection. Stop using the word Liberal as label, it is REALLLY starting fucking piss me off. NOT all liberals are the same, nor are conservatives, same with Dems and Repubs. Use your big words like, You, and people who see _____ and this ___________ is bull shit, and so on. Thank you.

Kmarion wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

No.  Just go get them.  Brits have the resources to do that.

Yeah, if anyone knew where they were. Iran is a big place.

At this point if we knew where they were I'd support going in to get them. Diplomacy doesn't seem to be providing many results, though it's always best to give it a chance first. We don't know where they are, we can't go and get them.

And this is why Iran is allowing "indirect" contact with the soldiers. Location, Location, Location.




http://i13.tinypic.com/4bp8yzs.jpg

TEHRAN, Iran - About 200 students threw rocks and firecrackers at the British Embassy on Sunday, calling for the expulsion of the country's ambassador because of the standoff over Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines.

Are those students?  Some of them look as old as my dad.

fadedsteve wrote:

I bet you would be calm and collected. . .totally coherent to your surroundings. . .fucking hypocrite!

How am I a hypocrite for stating that I could do nothing, but wish for a diplomatic end?

fadedsteve wrote:

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!!

The key here is that he asked what I (< -- Key word here ) would do. Thanks for trying to tell me what I would do after I finish telling you what I would do. Your analysis fails due mirror imaging -- you can't expect me to do what someone else would do since obviously this isn't always the case.

fadedsteve wrote:

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!!

Did you just finish describing Gitmo as a Hilton -- lol -- wow you truly do need a break from life and honestly reassess what you stand for. Clearly you don't stand for anything remotely resembling American values -- oh wait -- indirectly you might if you sympathize and play down the gross neglect of Geneva Conventions.

fadedsteve wrote:

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!

Oh yeah? Enemy of the State you say then explain the rulings on these cases:

Hamdi V. Rumsfeld -- Detained Enemy Combatants -- Have the right to defend themselves (including consular visits -- which we Britian is currently bitching about in the case of Iran -- you want to bitch about that then  man the hell up and realize we did the same thing )

Padilla V. Rumsfeld -- Federal habeas corpus petition held improperly filed in Federal District Court in New York, where petition concerened US citizen who was being detained, in Navy bring in South Carolina, as asserted "enemy combatant" <-- Woopsie Constitution trumps enemy of the state mumbo jumbo

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld  -- Supreme Court of the United  States finds that -- military comissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo bay violate both UCMJ and Geneva Conventions



Regardless of how you obtained the personal they ALL deserve equal protection under the law -- it doesn't matter what fancy name you label the enemy they all are REQUIRED under International Law equal protection under that law. This isn't just AMERICAN law they are being protected by its also the past centuries legacy of codification of laws regulating the act of war -- notably 1949 Geneva Convention  III on Prisoners of War (update 1929 Convention)

You would know this if you moved your all seeing eye past the reality portrayed to you via mass media / lack of exposure to actual application of law rather than assuming they don't deserve protection because they are the enemy.

fadedsteve wrote:

They are enemy combatants and ENJOY military tribunals. . .nothing better!

Proved this wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt

fadedsteve wrote:

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!

Once again I bring up REASON over EMOTION -- you may feel disturbed with the situation and it may very well be merited, but losing your head over this situation and not allowing reason to take hold over your decision making is what brings up comments like bashing someone over the head with a bottle.

This entire time I've been trying to argue its pointless to label one person to blame for the situation that is going on for both sides have violated given rights afforded under international law. To say Iran is the aggressor going out of its way to abduct British personnel is a far cry from the reality of the situation. Some applies for Iranian treatment of the British personnel. Only catch about the treatment would have to be the fact that we are going to be bitching about something we patently violated countless times via Rendition / secret prisons / torture ...so essentially what I'm saying is how can you be appalled at something another country is merely going to do on a reciprocal basis? Unless you equally voice against the wrongs of our countries -- judging by the military tribunal comment i doubt it.

fadedsteve wrote:

Its a cocky, arrogant, "its got to be Americas fault" attitude that I simply cannot comprehend. . . .

I mean the facts are flying in their faces, and they want to say some bullshit like, "Well, why cant you guys look at the situation from the Iranians perspective.. . . "    are you kidding me. . . .honestly!

Who has claimed it's Americas fault? It's clearly Irans fault and there is no excuse for their actions.

fadedsteve wrote:

btw GITMO is a 4 star fucking hotel compared with ANYTHING the Brits are staying in, in Iran!! PERIOD, dont even go there. . . . also, those detainees DO NOT deserve equal protection under US law whatsoever. . .Only the communist ACLU preaches that bullshit. . .

The troops captured in 2004 were treated well, on the whole, by the Iranians, though were subjected to psychological torture (much like goes on in Gitmo - the sort of stuff you consistently dismiss in that context). All available evidence suggests that these captives have been treated well, though seemingly subjected to some level of coercion. Everything suggests that the conditions they are being held in are at least as good as those in Gitmo.

fadedsteve wrote:

Another person (berster7) aplogizing, rationalizing, and sympathizing with the Iranians. . . . . .sad

side note: gitmo is a fucking joke. . . ."psycological torture" LOL. . . .cry me a river

Sure the captives are treated well. . . .they have food in front of them (little do you know the food is gone once the camera turns off!), they are paraded in front of the Iranian media (which is illegal), they are FORCED to apologize for no reason other than humiliate them and the British government (also illegal).

YEA! They are having a good ole' time in the Tehran 4 Seasons. . . .you liberals/general sympathizers are pathetic

Your reading skills seem to be somewhat lacking. I haven't apologised or sympathised with the Iranians in any way. What part of:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's clearly Irans fault and there is no excuse for their actions.

don't you understand? Is the statement too complicated for you?

As for the treatment of the abductees, what are you basing any of your assumptions on? All I can see are your own personal prejudices.

There have been British soldiers captured by the Iranians in 2004. They were treated well, apart from, as I mentioned earlier, certain episodes of psychological torture - which you don't seem to regard as bad treatment. I would call that as clear an indication as we can possibly have (a recent past preceedent) that they are being treated well.

I don't condone any of Irans actions in this incident. I find the sorts of levels of psychological torture they are probably being subjected to (much like the prisoners in Gitmo - like the one who was released today and returned to the UK) repugnent.

Diplomacy takes time. Botched rescue operations don't - Operation Eagle Claw anybody?

You seem to take a very misguided and immature attitude to what is quite a serious international incident that could have all sorts of negative global reprecussions.

Bertster7 wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Another person (berster7) aplogizing, rationalizing, and sympathizing with the Iranians. . . . . .sad

side note: gitmo is a fucking joke. . . ."psycological torture" LOL. . . .cry me a river

Sure the captives are treated well. . . .they have food in front of them (little do you know the food is gone once the camera turns off!), they are paraded in front of the Iranian media (which is illegal), they are FORCED to apologize for no reason other than humiliate them and the British government (also illegal).

YEA! They are having a good ole' time in the Tehran 4 Seasons. . . .you liberals/general sympathizers are pathetic

Your reading skills seem to be somewhat lacking. I haven't apologised or sympathised with the Iranians in any way. What part of:

Bertster7 wrote:

It's clearly Irans fault and there is no excuse for their actions.

don't you understand? Is the statement too complicated for you?

As for the treatment of the abductees, what are you basing any of your assumptions on? All I can see are your own personal prejudices.

There have been British soldiers captured by the Iranians in 2004. They were treated well, apart from, as I mentioned earlier, certain episodes of psychological torture - which you don't seem to regard as bad treatment. I would call that as clear an indication as we can possibly have (a recent past preceedent) that they are being treated well.

I don't condone any of Irans actions in this incident. I find the sorts of levels of psychological torture they are probably being subjected to (much like the prisoners in Gitmo - like the one who was released today and returned to the UK) repugnent.

Diplomacy takes time. Botched rescue operations don't - Operation Eagle Claw anybody?

You seem to take a very misguided and immature attitude to what is quite a serious international incident that could have all sorts of negative global reprecussions.

...but tell me, what do you suggest we do about Iran and their growing biligerence. ( S )?

worldwide ban on religion.

usmarine2007 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

worldwide ban on religion.

I think I have said that on here like 100 times.

You can't ban Religions.  Maybe that would solve a lot of issues, but it certainly would bring other ones.

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-04-01 16:24:20)

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

worldwide ban on religion.

I think I have said that on here like 100 times.

You can't ban Religions.  Maybe that would solve a lot of issues, but it certainly would bring other ones.

A ban on religion is not only impossible it is a joke. Humans use religion as a tool to justify our inherent barbaric tendencies. If it isn't religion, it would be race, or some other idea to take it's place. Education, tolerance, and compassion should be expanded to combat hate and ignorance. Repressing a persons right to believe what they would like to is not the solution. I cringe every time someone suggest it.

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

You can't ban Religions.  Maybe that would solve a lot of issues, but it certainly would bring other ones.

A ban on religion is not only impossible it is a joke. Humans use religion as a tool to justify our inherent barbaric tendencies. If it isn't religion, it would be race, or some other idea to take it's place. Education, tolerance, and compassion should be expanded to combat hate and ignorance. Repressing a persons right to believe what they would like to is not the solution. I cringe every time someone suggest it.

Its inevitable.
Accept it.

If you would like to accept it go right ahead. If it didn't happen during Crusades, French wars of Religion, and The Thirty years war it's not going to happen now. Our religious freedom have expanded since those conflicts, mankind is incapable of letting go of their core beliefs. Accept it.

Kmarion wrote:

I cringe every time someone suggest it.

I cringe everytime I hear someone do or want something done "in the name of god."

Kmarion wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I cringe every time someone suggest it.

I cringe everytime I hear someone do or want something done "in the name of god."

I cringe every time I see Micheal Richards now. It doesn't mean we should start painting everyone one color.

People do not kill or outcast groups in society because of Micheal Richards.