# British Forces Held By Iran



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1257281,00.html

any comments?


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2007)

I think they will be released, with nothing big really happening. It will be all over the news for a few days, then people will forget it happened.

Hopefully!


----------



## DiPpY eGgS (Mar 6, 2005)

I think they will be released eventually

I hope this doesn't turn out to be a Brittish version of the 80's hostage crisis..

But then again, I don't know much about this type of stuff, so why I posted here doesn't make much of a difference--like an un-educated guess lol


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Can anyone really believe that the Iranian president is coming to New York unhindered, after their country is helping Iraqis killing Americans. Too bad Churchill isn't still alive for this one.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

They'll release them if they don't want the blood shed of these so called "forces" that captured them.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Look at this situation another way;

What would happen if Iran didn't release the British Forces ? Probably not a damned thing.

How much more closely must the UK, US, Israel be pushed together before all three share the same asshole ? Same goes for Iran & Russia.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

User said:


> Look at this situation another way;
> 
> What would happen if Iran didn't release the British Forces ? Probably not a damned thing.


You obviously don't know Britain, we'd have special forces or SAS in and out of there, dead captors and rescued captive and they wouldn't know a thing.

Under no cirumstances are we going to leave 8 Royal Navy soldiers and 7 Royal marines, if they don't release them we'll get them back by force.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

this isn't the first snatch and grab job Iran's been in on. they nabbed the Israeli troops last summer which still haven't been returned. remember the short lived hezbollah war? over kidnapped Israeli troops. the big difference as G23 posted, is that this isn't Israel. this is a major world power that will NOT back down when provoked. though, to be fair Israel only backed down because the rest of the world TOLD them to. they accused Israel of being too aggressive. remember? the point is the Iranians will capitualte eventually, this does three things that they want.

1. it shows the other middle eastern countries YET AGAIN that they aren't messing around here and will stand up to the west alone, if need be. 
2. it shows the west the same thing. it would give some pause to anyone willing to cross them that they WILL stand and fight.
3. (and i believe most importantly to their longterm goals) it distracts the world from the nuclear ambitions they have. the UN, UK, US, and the rest of the west will focus on this brushfire and give them a bit more time to further their nuclear goals. Russia DID just pull more than 2,000 of their technicians from the Natanz site and though Iran and Russia say it's about money, it's not hard to infer that the rising impatience of the west regarding Iran COULD have been a factor.

and Fargo, he's not coming to the US now. he's announced that he couldn't get the extra 30 visas that he wanted to so he won't be appearing before the UN. he's sending a functionary instead.


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

Didn't Iran do this with British troops back in '04?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

not as i recall. remember anything specific?


----------



## JD7.62 (Apr 7, 2005)

Fargo said:


> Can anyone really believe that the Iranian president is coming to New York unhindered, after their country is helping Iraqis killing Americans. Too bad Churchill isn't still alive for this one.


Agree 100%!!


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

The UK Foreign Secretary has demanded the immediate and safe return of the captured personnel.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

they have done the same ting to british forces before. they were returned but they never agreed on why they where captured...

why cant we just skip all this PR BS, and just get it on!!! ( atlast now "we" have the upper hand)

THIS IS SPARTA!!!! ( yes i just saw that movie :laugh: )


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

Here's a BBC article outlining the situation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6489493.stm



mdrs said:


> not as i recall. remember anything specific?


http://english.people.com.cn/200406/22/eng...622_147188.html

Found that through a quick Google search. Seems that the last time they did this it was around when there were calls for inspections into their nuclear program. Similar to now. Weird.







Fact is, it's not the first time.


----------



## Devon Amazon (Apr 3, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> Look at this situation another way;
> 
> What would happen if Iran didn't release the British Forces ? Probably not a damned thing.


You obviously don't know Britain, we'd have special forces or SAS in and out of there, dead captors and rescued captive and they wouldn't know a thing.

Under no cirumstances are we going to leave 8 Royal Navy soldiers and 7 Royal marines, if they don't release them we'll get them back by force.
[/quote]
^









Best fighting force on earth


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

i fail to understand why it matters if it's the first time. that's not a justification for this. why does that pop up every time something like this comes up? the middle east has been fightting for more than a thousand years, it would be difficult to find something that hasn't happened before.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

I see the British are responding swiftly. What's it gunna take to send these bastards running Iran a lesson?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Devon Amazon said:


> Look at this situation another way;
> 
> What would happen if Iran didn't release the British Forces ? Probably not a damned thing.


You obviously don't know Britain, we'd have special forces or SAS in and out of there, dead captors and rescued captive and they wouldn't know a thing.

Under no cirumstances are we going to leave 8 Royal Navy soldiers and 7 Royal marines, if they don't release them we'll get them back by force.
[/quote]
^









Best fighting force on earth
[/quote]

Don't misunderstand my statement, I would hope that Briton wouldn't coward away from a matter like this. If the sailors are charged with espionage, penalty is death.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

i don't see Iran going too far with this. they'll give the soldiers back. what this is a statement. the only positive outcome from this would be the world realizing what the Ayatollahs are capable of and backing up those of us who see that the government needs to be stopped. i'm not saying we need a war but signing some UN sanctions and upping the ante embargowize would be a start. doesn't it sound strange at all the one of the most oil rich countries on the planet can only produce electricity with nuclear power? especially when said country has been calling for war with the west, a reestablished caliphate across europe, and the extermination of Israel for the last twenty years and change?


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

I would think in a case like this, one should issue an 72 hour ultimatum; otherwise Iran can go around doing whatever they want whenever they want to. Come to think of it, that's what they do.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

Fargo said:


> Can anyone really believe that the Iranian president is coming to New York unhindered, after their country is helping Iraqis killing Americans. Too bad Churchill isn't still alive for this one.


Dont worry dude I have a car bomb ready for that piece of camel sh*t.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I just dont get our country. Invade one country for essentially no good reason, then invite an aggressive serious threat of a ruler over for tea...


----------



## maddyfish (Sep 16, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> I think they will be released, with nothing big really happening. It will be all over the news for a few days, then people will forget it happened.
> 
> Hopefully!


I don't know how old you are, but the same thing was said in 1979, when Iranians took American embassy workers hostage. It took nearly two years, a newly elected preisdent and the tacit threat of nuclear attack to get them back.

There is only one way to deal with this, a statement from Tony Blair indicating that if they are not released now, or if they are killed that there will be massive military retaliation.

I like to think of world politics like neighborhood politics: if your wife was walking down the sidewalk, and your neighbor came out and grabbed her, and took her into his house, you would not be patient. You'd call the cops, if there were no cops, you'd go in and get her yourself, whatever it took.

If this case, with the impotence of the U.N., there are no cops.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

acestro said:


> I just dont get our country. Invade one country for essentially no good reason, then invite an aggressive serious threat of a ruler over for tea...


The theory was that placing American interests in the middle of the Muslim world would set off a contageous time bomb of western style democracy, while drawing the terrorists to fight us primarily in Iraq. The theory ignored the lessons of history for the British in iraq, who finally withdrew after getting pounded by sectarian divisions. The second part of the theory assumes that Muslim extremists are as stupid as Animals or fish, that if you bait them to one area, they'll be absent somewhere else. The terrorists can fight us all fronts, because they're a global operation. The irony is that we ourselves have been rendered impotent in other areas of the world, such as Iran. Obviously a kidnapping of British troops also tests the will of America, since we and the British are close allies.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Seriously, look at the balls these scumbags have. http://www.noticias-oax.com.mx/articulos.p...d_ejemplar=1384

Iran refuses to 
release British sailors



> TEHRAN, Iran.- Iran on Saturday insisted that 15 British sailors it seized had illegally entered Iranian waters, denouncing what it called a "blatant aggression." The Britons were being taken to the capital for questioning, Iranian media reported.
> 
> Iran's tough comments came after Britain demanded the return of the sailors and denied they had strayed into Iranian waters while searching for smugglers off Iraq's coast.
> 
> ...


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

f*ck em'

Send a Royal Navy Trafalgar class sub near their coast and demand the release of the soldiers within 24hours or we destroy their major infrastructure with cruise missiles.

I echo the sentiments of wishing churchill was still around.

In all our wishes a Vanguard class sub would come and pay a visit


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

It sounds so easy, however it wouldn't be. You wouldn't want to force enough Iranians into Pakistan to overthrow that weak government that has plenty of nuclear missiles already made. You would be dangerously close to China and its bitches.

For once I'd like to see the russians are chinese, just f*cking once, get angry at modern Islamic extremists.


----------



## DiXoN (Jan 31, 2003)

Mettle said:


> f*ck em'
> 
> Send a Royal Navy Trafalgar class sub near their coast and demand the release of the soldiers within 24hours or we destroy their major infrastructure with cruise missiles.
> 
> ...


f*cking A


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Right now the Iranians are shaking in terror over what the British might do, such as claim that they are taking the matter very seriously; or maybe Tony Blair will yell at the Iranians, much like Al Pacino yells in his later movies.


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

mdrs said:


> i fail to understand why it matters if it's the first time. that's not a justification for this. why does that pop up every time something like this comes up? the middle east has been fightting for more than a thousand years, it would be difficult to find something that hasn't happened before.


I was just pointing out that it happened before. And was just a bs show of would-be force. People are getting so riled up over it this time around when it was so under publicized last time that most people don't even remember it happening.

LAME.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

i was talking to my gf and her dad (english dude) last night about this. i simply said, "i bet you a handful of money that there are already teams of SAS either on the border or already in tehran plotting something...just waiting for the time to come."

noone disagreed with me.lol

i miss churchill as well


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

fargo, the part of the theory that the terrorists would focus on Iraq was not in vain. Al-Zarqawi has said that Al Qaeda will focus on Iraq. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-17-afghan-alqaeda_x.htm) make no mistake, terrorists aren't stupid, but they ARE predictable. the middle east is the genesis of all the strife we deal with. why? because it's the holy land. we're a stone throw from Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. the three holiest cities on the planet for all muslims. New York, DC, San Diego, these are tactical targets but they don't serve a spiritual purpose. it DOES make sense to take the fight to the enemy. in doing so, not only do we force them to use finite resorces (which we have more of) to keep us at bay in the middle east, but we also go after their recruiting machine. how much grassroots support would terrorist organizations enjoy if they allowed kafurs to control the most holy sites on earth? or even worse, kafurs controlling the middle east? who will support an army that refuses to defend its homeland and people?

and don't fool yourself into thinking that the Iranians are "shaking in terror". these people haven't been conqured since Alexander. this snatch and grab was a calculated political move on the part of the Ayatollahs. instead of shaking in terror, they're sizing up the west. it makes more sense to mess with the UK because they don't have the history of unilatteral action that the US does. by doing this, they seem to be sizing up the conviction of the UK and greater europe. the US is totally up front in terms of its policy concerning Iran. we've refused to deal with them since 1979. the UK is different. this is their turn.

ace, Iran is a competely different animal than Iraq. your views on the merits of the invasion aside, Saddam was a much softer target than Iran in every respect. Iran controls more oil that, like it or not, influences the entire world economy. if the Ayatollahs lit their oilfields like Saddam, the entire world would feel the pinch. their military is MUCH stronger then Iraq had. AND the middle east viewed Saddam as a loose cannon, at best. as a member of the Baath party, he was neither hardcore Sunni or Shiite. if anything, he was more secular than anything else. Iran is the nation muslims the world over look to when looking for an example how middle eastern nations should act. they defy anyone who doesn't cowtow to them. they have since Darius. taking on Iraq was much easier than taking on Iran which would not only be an act of war on them but of all the values we're up against in the middle east in the first place. it would polarize the middle east in a way that could well start another world war. and with all the loose nukes and fundamentalists in that area would certainly escalate in a way that won't be containable.

and user, a lot of people say that Russia and China are under the illusion that they can use militant Islam and rogue states to weaken the west, eventually allowing them to make a bit for major global power. to them, Islam is their dog to sic on the west.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

mdrs said:


> and don't fool yourself into thinking that the Iranians are "shaking in terror". these people haven't been conqured since Alexander. this snatch and grab was a calculated political move on the part of the Ayatollahs. instead of shaking in terror, they're sizing up the west.


I was being sarcastic in that statement about Iran being terrified. The Iranians are laughing at us. That was a thoughtful post of yours though. I'll respond to it in more detail later when I have time.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Fargo said:


> and don't fool yourself into thinking that the Iranians are "shaking in terror". these people haven't been conqured since Alexander. this snatch and grab was a calculated political move on the part of the Ayatollahs. instead of shaking in terror, they're sizing up the west.


I was being sarcastic in that statement about Iran being terrified. The Iranians are laughing at us. That was a thoughtful post of yours though. I'll respond to it in more detail later when I have time.

[/quote]

oh sorry. i personally love sarcasm but it doesn't come through well in type. thanks for the compliments.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Mettle said:


> i fail to understand why it matters if it's the first time. that's not a justification for this. why does that pop up every time something like this comes up? the middle east has been fightting for more than a thousand years, it would be difficult to find something that hasn't happened before.


I was just pointing out that it happened before. And was just a bs show of would-be force. People are getting so riled up over it this time around when it was so under publicized last time that most people don't even remember it happening.

LAME.
[/quote]

i completely agree. no slight intended against the above poster but "they'll get released and it'll be all over the news and then people won't remember anymore, hopefully" is a big part of the problem. i'm sure that lots of other people with the best intentions simply mean that hopefully these troops will be released and everything will blow over. i'm sure not many actually want the world to forget. but this pacifism, "live and let live" attitude is what's going to allow them to do it again. it's what's allowed them to put so much time and effort into becoming nuclear. it's what's allowing Ahmadinejad to talk big to the would-be rogue states about "the fire of muslim fury" and hold holocaust denier rallies. and it HAS to stop.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

mdrs said:


> ace, Iran is a competely different animal than Iraq. your views on the merits of the invasion aside, Saddam was a much softer target than Iran in every respect. Iran controls more oil that, like it or not, influences the entire world economy. if the Ayatollahs lit their oilfields like Saddam, the entire world would feel the pinch. their military is MUCH stronger then Iraq had. AND the middle east viewed Saddam as a loose cannon, at best. as a member of the Baath party, he was neither hardcore Sunni or Shiite. if anything, he was more secular than anything else. Iran is the nation muslims the world over look to when looking for an example how middle eastern nations should act. they defy anyone who doesn't cowtow to them. they have since Darius. taking on Iraq was much easier than taking on Iran which would not only be an act of war on them but of all the values we're up against in the middle east in the first place. it would polarize the middle east in a way that could well start another world war. and with all the loose nukes and fundamentalists in that area would certainly escalate in a way that won't be containable.
> 
> and user, a lot of people say that Russia and China are under the illusion that they can use militant Islam and rogue states to weaken the west, eventually allowing them to make a bit for major global power. to them, Islam is their dog to sic on the west.


Iran is the growing Nazi Germany of our time. They initiated the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel, which was really a war between Israel and Iranian surrogates. They hosted the Holocaust denial conference, they have vowed to destroy the Jewish state, and keep testing the international community successfully. Of course the Left sypathizes with Iran and advocates not confronting them. They spewed out the same bullshit here in America about Germany before WW2 as long as Hitler had an agreement with Stalin. Funny how the communists were some of the first people Hitler went after in his own country. In the same way, the Muslim radicals would gladly behead a liberal or a homosexual or a progressive Jew - even though among those groups the terrorists currently elicit a disproportionate degree of sympathy. The sympathizers mean well as do most liberals; they just underestimate the savagry of our enemies.


----------



## Guest (Mar 27, 2007)

One theory why the Iranians took the British Sailors and Marines hostage was to disrupt the upcoming sanctions against them by creating conflict among the participating nations.

The Iranains saw the support Hezbollah won when Israel took military action against them when they took an Israeli hostage and Iran wants to repeat that success. Iran is not being wreckless. They want the UK and the US to take military action against them so they can win support from other nations. This is a calculated chess move.


----------



## boozehound420 (Apr 18, 2005)

Warm up the bombers!!!

Perfect timing with the UN just passing a vote of 15-0 for the tough sanctions on Iran.



> UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iran's foreign minister rejected a unanimous vote by the U.N. Security Council on Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran because of its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program.
> 
> Speaking to the 15-member council in measured tones after the vote, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran presents no threat to international peace and security and therefore falls outside the council's charter mandate."
> 
> ...


.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Fargo said:


> ace, Iran is a competely different animal than Iraq. your views on the merits of the invasion aside, Saddam was a much softer target than Iran in every respect. Iran controls more oil that, like it or not, influences the entire world economy. if the Ayatollahs lit their oilfields like Saddam, the entire world would feel the pinch. their military is MUCH stronger then Iraq had. AND the middle east viewed Saddam as a loose cannon, at best. as a member of the Baath party, he was neither hardcore Sunni or Shiite. if anything, he was more secular than anything else. Iran is the nation muslims the world over look to when looking for an example how middle eastern nations should act. they defy anyone who doesn't cowtow to them. they have since Darius. taking on Iraq was much easier than taking on Iran which would not only be an act of war on them but of all the values we're up against in the middle east in the first place. it would polarize the middle east in a way that could well start another world war. and with all the loose nukes and fundamentalists in that area would certainly escalate in a way that won't be containable.
> 
> and user, a lot of people say that Russia and China are under the illusion that they can use militant Islam and rogue states to weaken the west, eventually allowing them to make a bit for major global power. to them, Islam is their dog to sic on the west.


Iran is the growing Nazi Germany of our time. They initiated the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel, which was really a war between Israel and Iranian surrogates. They hosted the Holocaust denial conference, they have vowed to destroy the Jewish state, and keep testing the international community successfully. Of course the Left sypathizes with Iran and advocates not confronting them. They spewed out the same bullshit here in America about Germany before WW2 as long as Hitler had an agreement with Stalin. Funny how the communists were some of the first people Hitler went after in his own country. In the same way, the Muslim radicals would gladly behead a liberal or a homosexual or a progressive Jew - even though among those groups the terrorists currently elicit a disproportionate degree of sympathy. The sympathizers mean well as do most liberals; they just underestimate the savagry of our enemies.
[/quote]

i won't argue one way or another about the administration lying or not. i think they were misinformed, you think they lied. i however, don't think i'm any less honest because i don't think they flat out lied. it's a judgement call. i will agree that a counter insurgency war is costly. it's very costly in terms of loss of life, manpower in general, and financial costs. i will table the counterpoint that we'd be producing more militants no matter what we did. i therefore believe that argument is null. i fail to see how my viewpoint about being on the offensive is related to how the war was sold to the people, though. the nature of war is either offensive or defensive, i prefer to be taking the fight to the enemy rather than waiting for another attack. the key advantage, as i see it, is one of morale. it's much easier on fighting men to be on the offensive than to be constantly waiting to get hit. and one must keep in mind, that while a counterinsurgency war is costly, it's worse for our enemies who have far less resources than we do. from a strategic standpoint, i'd put our war machine up against an insurgency's any day. the costs will be great, to be sure, but as long as we don't give ground out of fear or any other weakness, we can fight on far longer than they can.

and i'm sure that liberals mean well. it wouldn't serve even the most corrupt politician to honestly want us to lose this confrontation of cultures, but the road to hell as they say... i also have a major prolblem with the idea of allowing those who can't even lead their own party to lead this government. i find it difficult to take anyone seriously when they relentlessly play politics and criticize a policy or a plan with no cohesive plan of their own.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

boozehound420 said:


> Warm up the bombers!!!


all this really does is add a few items to the growing list of products that can't be imported to Iran via sea and freeze the assets of some individuals who seem to be funding or are tied to the funding of the nuclear program. to be sure, it's a plus, but it's not enough. also keep in mind that Iran has another 90 days before the UN will send the IAEA back to confirm that they've stopped enriching uranium. so we're probably at least another six months from another round of sanctions. the UN is what will allow this to become a nuclear war. and just like the league of nations before it, it will give rise to one of the most horrific wars in the history of mankind. keep in mind, there's not been any real peace in the middle east for more than the last 3000 years. these are a people who are culturally adjusted to constant war and hardship.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

mdrs and fargo, i truly enjoy reading your posts.


----------



## bluenose81huskys (Jul 23, 2006)

If Anything happens to they Guys, there will be a large bombing down on Iran!


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

bluenose81huskys said:


> If Anything happens to they Guys, there will be a large bombing down on Iran!


It will be the bomb of Tony Blair yelling and the Left pontificating that we have to understand Iran's feelings.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Fargo said:


> If Anything happens to they Guys, there will be a large bombing down on Iran!


It will be the bomb of Tony Blair yelling and the Left pontificating that we have to understand Iran's feelings.
[/quote]

agreed. and anyone who calls for war will be a warhawk. hell of a morale booster. not only does your country not care about you but neither does the rest of the world.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Anyone that called for war at this stage in the "game" would be a jackass of the situation. The USA doesn't need another war at this time, and the UK and Europe will not go on the offensive.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

User said:


> Anyone that called for war at this stage in the "game" would be a jackass of the situation. The USA doesn't need another war at this time, and the UK and Europe will not go on the offensive.


What if we weren't bogged down in Iraq? Would a call for war be a good idea then?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

User said:


> Anyone that called for war at this stage in the "game" would be a jackass of the situation. The USA doesn't need another war at this time, and the UK and Europe will not go on the offensive.


who "needs" another war? and what position are you looking from that gives you the expertise to declare someone else a jackass?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Yes.

In fact I'd rather have seen Iran fall before Iraq (Iraq being the weak leak of the two) that would have embolden Saddam Hussein to a point that Israel could've used that for an excuse to take him out. The USA could have invaded to restore a pseudo order. Once the whole arab mideast is under control of the west, Israel will not longer be valued. Especially since a democratic open Israel will not survive, arab immigrates can simply gain the majority and vote their own into office.

Would have been better a spend a possible lie on Iran (WMD perhaps) than Iraq.



> who "needs" another war? and what position are you looking from that gives you the expertise to declare someone else a jackass?


Just personal opinion pal.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

User said:


> Yes.
> 
> In fact I'd rather have seen Iran fall before Iraq (Iraq being the weak leak of the two) that would have embolden Saddam Hussein to a point that Israel could've used that for an excuse to take him out. The USA could have invaded to restore a pseudo order. Once the whole arab mideast is under control of the west, Israel will not longer be valued. Especially since a democratic open Israel will not survive, arab immigrates can simply gain the majority and vote their own into office.
> 
> ...


there's a difference between personal opinions and facts. you don't have any facts to support that the WMD angle was a lie. you INTERPRET certain facts to support your opinion. if it's an opinion, you'd do well to say it IMO.

i'm curious about a few of your other views as well. why would arab immigrants want to "gain a majority" in the Israeli government as they could simply take it over if thousands of people decided to emmigrate to Israel. and why would Israel let them in, anyway?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mdrs said:


> Yes.
> 
> In fact I'd rather have seen Iran fall before Iraq (Iraq being the weak leak of the two) that would have embolden Saddam Hussein to a point that Israel could've used that for an excuse to take him out. The USA could have invaded to restore a pseudo order. Once the whole arab mideast is under control of the west, Israel will not longer be valued. Especially since a democratic open Israel will not survive, arab immigrates can simply gain the majority and vote their own into office.
> 
> ...


there's a difference between personal opinions and facts. you don't have any facts to support that the WMD angle was a lie. you INTERPRET certain facts to support your opinion. if it's an opinion, you'd do well to say it IMO.

i'm curious about a few of your other views as well. why would arab immigrants want to "gain a majority" in the Israeli government as they could simply take it over if thousands of people decided to emmigrate to Israel. and why would Israel let them in, anyway?
[/quote]

Anything I type out is my opinion , I don't use IMO. Also did you even take note of the word "possible" before "lie" ? Do you facts to discredit any possible lies ?

As for Israel. If the islamic extremists were as smart as many people believe, they would have accepted one state and simply used open democracy to get what they wanted. That could have forced Israel to have a minority regime and lose the backing of the west.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

User said:


> Yes.
> 
> In fact I'd rather have seen Iran fall before Iraq (Iraq being the weak leak of the two) that would have embolden Saddam Hussein to a point that Israel could've used that for an excuse to take him out. The USA could have invaded to restore a pseudo order. Once the whole arab mideast is under control of the west, Israel will not longer be valued. Especially since a democratic open Israel will not survive, arab immigrates can simply gain the majority and vote their own into office.
> 
> ...


there's a difference between personal opinions and facts. you don't have any facts to support that the WMD angle was a lie. you INTERPRET certain facts to support your opinion. if it's an opinion, you'd do well to say it IMO.

i'm curious about a few of your other views as well. why would arab immigrants want to "gain a majority" in the Israeli government as they could simply take it over if thousands of people decided to emmigrate to Israel. and why would Israel let them in, anyway?
[/quote]

Anything I type out is my opinion , I don't use IMO. Also did you even take note of the word "possible" before "lie" ? Do you facts to discredit any possible lies ?

As for Israel. If the islamic extremists were as smart as many people believe, they would have accepted one state and simply used open democracy to get what they wanted. That could have forced Israel to have a minority regime and lose the backing of the west.
[/quote]

there's a difference between intellegence and pragmatizm. fundamentalists are intellegent but they aren't pragmatic, in that way. i fail to see why when the west hypothetically wrests controll of the middle east they'd chose Israel of all places to set up a new state. if they took over New York city, i wouldn't join a mass migration of displaced americans to live in NY and run for office there. why would they? they've had more than two millenia to use ANY government model to instill peace and stability.

and what does this mean?
"Do you facts to discredit any possible lies ?"


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I must've made a typing error;

Do you have facts to discredit any WMD lies ?

I must've also not been clear about my other statement.

If the mideast is to be fully democratic, Israel would lose its mideast valve. Immigration within a peaceful democratic mideast would kill Israel as we know it. War is key to keeping Israel alive, peace would kill it (not it a literal sence, just politically)

I'm talking about normal average working arab & muslims setting up shop in Israel in a democratic mideast, not muslim extremists. Jews would be a miniority in their "own" state if full peace was obtained, arabs would need and want israels jobs and higher pay.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

User said:


> I must've made a typing error;
> 
> Do you have facts to discredit any WMD lies ?
> 
> ...


do you have any FACTS that actually prove that the administration or anyone else in the government flat out lied about WMDs? if you do, i'm sure the government and the american people would LOVE to talk to you. despite the best efforts of many dedicated people, no one has been able to find that magic recording of some CIA operative or the president himself saying that they KNOW there are no WMDs in Iraq but they're going to say there are anyway. so please, share your facts proving lies.

and you still haven't answered my question. why would people be emmigrating to Israel? why would they be leaving their homes in mass numbers to live in Israel? what makes you think that Israel would be fit to live in after a major war?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mdrs said:


> do you have any FACTS that actually prove that the administration or anyone else in the government flat out lied about WMDs? if you do, i'm sure the government and the american people would LOVE to talk to you. despite the best efforts of many dedicated people, no one has been able to find that magic recording of some CIA operative or the president himself saying that they KNOW there are no WMDs in Iraq but they're going to say there are anyway. so please, share your facts proving lies.
> 
> and you still haven't answered my question. why would people be emmigrating to Israel? why would they be leaving their homes in mass numbers to live in Israel? what makes you think that Israel would be fit to live in after a major war?


If massive WMD was found inside Iraq as the prewar sabering rattling had everyone believe, we wouldn't even be discussing the possibility of "lies" or perhaps "distortion". Again, you can't discredit the possibility that the pre war was false.

Who said anything about another major war with Israel involved ? I have been clear, I am talking about a PEACEFUL MIDEAST, as in PEACE, as in NO VIOLENCE. As in Israelis and Arabs getting alone. More Arabs would immigrate to Israel if the future is peace. Which Israel rejects its called general assembly resolution 194.

Iran's saber rattling, and the Iraq post war is pushing Israelis and Sunni Arabs together.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

User said:


> do you have any FACTS that actually prove that the administration or anyone else in the government flat out lied about WMDs? if you do, i'm sure the government and the american people would LOVE to talk to you. despite the best efforts of many dedicated people, no one has been able to find that magic recording of some CIA operative or the president himself saying that they KNOW there are no WMDs in Iraq but they're going to say there are anyway. so please, share your facts proving lies.
> 
> and you still haven't answered my question. why would people be emmigrating to Israel? why would they be leaving their homes in mass numbers to live in Israel? what makes you think that Israel would be fit to live in after a major war?


If massive WMD was found inside Iraq as the prewar sabering rattling had everyone believe, we wouldn't even be discussing the possibility of "lies" or perhaps "distortion". Again, you can't discredit the possibility that the pre war was false.

Who said anything about another major war with Israel involved ? I have been clear, I am talking about a PEACEFUL MIDEAST, as in PEACE, as in NO VIOLENCE. As in Israelis and Arabs getting alone. More Arabs would immigrate to Israel if the future is peace. Which Israel rejects its called general assembly resolution 194.

Iran's saber rattling, and the Iraq post war is pushing Israelis and Sunni Arabs together.
[/quote]

i'll freely admit that you, me, or anyone else on this earth can't prove that the government lied about WMDs. but when i ask you to prove the the government lied as you've asserted above, you dance around the question. why?

and if we're talking about a PEACEFULL MIDEAST with no war to acheive it, fine. what would stop the millions of jewish people from emmigrating to Israel if they didn't need to fear for their lives? i hardly believe Israel is wrong in dictating who is and isn't allowed to cross its borders. they're a soverign country with the right to refuse service to whoever they please. same as we do. only over there, people care about border control.

and you STILL haven't answered my question. WHY would people desire to emmigrate to Israel as you say? you keep talking about all these "muslims and arabs" that would emmigrate to Israel if there was peace there but you've yet to illuminate me as to why.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Where in this entire thread did I say; The governement lied about WMD's inside Iraq ? Quote it.

I simply and plainly told you to submit evidence that disproves possible distortion and deviations of facts from the pre war. You haven't done so.

A democratic country that accepts peaceful immigration has liberty, a democratic country that doesn't accept peaceful immigration is bullshit. What would that make a possible future Israel ? Also the US doesn't care about border security, its pseudo security or perhaps and inability to control the border.

Why would arabs discontinue the quest to live inside israel just because peace was made? They haven't yet. There are millions of arabs in the west bank now that would live in israel if accepted and with fill citizenship.

And why is Tony Blair acting like the UK is going to attack Iran ? Not going to happen. Atleast not now.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

> Do you have facts to discredit any WMD lies ?


good enough? no i'm sure it isn't.

and explain to me what it is to be a "democratic country". when you're done with that, explain to me why "a democratic country that doesn't accept peaceful immigration is bullshit." after that explain to me how emmigrating to a country so that you can tear down its traditions and abolish its government so that you can install your own government and traditions qualifies as "peaceful immigration".

another point you overlooked, there are PALESTINIANS in Gaza right now what would declare their own soverign nation or be annexed into other countries if allowed but i defy you to find any that would jump at the chance of becoming citizens of Israel.

and what "quest to live in Israel" are you referring to? as i understand it, the people who are fighting Israel over the land are more interested in abolishing the Jewish state than anything else.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

It sure wasn't good enough

Until I say "the government" lied you have nothing. Think of "lies" and being a theory and I presented it, and you have nothing to discredit a simple theory. Democratic country lets see;

democratic;

characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or *social equality*; "democratic government"; "a democratic country"; representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large;

country;

the territory occupied by a nation;

Is that good enough, did you expect a different definition ?

Immigration.

the act of moving into one country from another.

A democratic country unholds liberty for all that wants to live in their country, not just one god damed ethic group.



> emmigrating to a country so that you can tear down its traditions and abolish its government so that you can install your own government and traditions qualifies as "peaceful immigration".


Democracy opens that door. Like it or not. Pissing and moaning wouldn't change it.

The people that are fighting for the destruction of Israel are trying to destroy the jewish state, of course. But not every arab that throws a rock at an Israeli tank is. Many are simply tired of the hopeless situation. Pay the mideast a visit as I did a few months ago.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

User said:


> It sure wasn't good enough
> 
> Until I say "the government" lied you have nothing. Think of "lies" and being a theory and I presented it, and you have nothing to discredit a simple theory. Democratic country lets see;
> 
> ...


so you've only said the government lied as a means of presenting a theory? i see. well then, as ace will certainly tell you, you don't have a theory you have a hypothesis. a theory is corroborated by factual proof which you have none of. so in essence you have a conspiracy theory. good luck with that.

and i didn't ask you to define immigration. i asked you to define PEACEFUL IMMIGRATION. a big difference as peaceful immigration is emigrating to a said destination with a goal of assimilating and eventually contributing to the social fabric of said area. emmigrating to an area to tear down its traditions and install your own is NOT peaceful. it's called an invasion. not a hard point to miss.

you didn't define democracy. you told me what it was characterized by. and a democratic country doesn't uphold the rights of all who want to live in that country. that would be quite impossible. a democratic country is responsible for upholding the rights of those who reside INSIDE the country it represents. others come second, and only then with the concent of the people. Ireland, for example, has no obligation to uphold MY rights simply because i'd like to live there.

what you're doing is taking the "social contract" idea and taking it lightyears in the wrong direction. a government is responsible for the people who reside inside the soverign boundries of that nation. the reason this is an important concept is that those people are AS CITIZENS, the only ones with the privilege of influencing the policies and responsibilites of said government.

now, let us refresh your concept of a democratic government's responsibilites.


> A democratic country unholds liberty for all that wants to live in their country, not just one god damed ethic group


 if government worked THAT way then the US is responsible for the freedom of every soul that wishes to live within her borders. aside from the obvious violations of every single soverign nation on earth, the economical ruin it would present globally, and the sheer LUNACY of thinking that we really were obligated to protect the rights of all those people, how would ANY government be able to live up to the mandate you've set up for it?

now, explain to me where (and you can use ANY linkable reference that you can find) according to your definition of democracy it says that as a democratic nation, said nation is obligated to allow people inside with the sole intent of destroying said government. a DEMOCRATIC government is responsible for acting on the needs of ONLY its citizens. and in doing so, if the elected officials adopt a governmental policy of limiting immigration, said government is then obligated to act on those policies. that's how democratic government works and, to use your words...


> Pissing and moaning wouldn't change it.


 don't like it? invent your own system of government, find an unclaimed bit of land and set up shop.


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

Whatever happened to Iran and the UK captives?









I got lost somewhere around 'democracy' and 'Israel' and 'emmigration' and the entire confusing back and forth about lying about WMD and Iraq. I don't even know which side you guys are arguing for. It all just seems like a bunch of semantics at this point. Ah well.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

i started this thread and i'm find with where it is. and in the title i did say "so lets see where this goes."


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

mdrs said:


> Whatever happened to Iran and the UK captives?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its a debate exercise, similar to boxer sparring. Its challenging and making our on debate responses better.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

> I have a theory. Do you hope that adding conspiracy to it will decrease its valve ? A true conspiracy will never be revealed because once revealed is no longer a conspiracy but an accepted fact.


no you have a hypothesis. one person cannot create a theory. one person states a hypothesis and then through the process of peer review said hypothesis then can become a theory or be discarded. however, since you don't have any factual evidence to back up your hypothesis, it really doesn't go any further than that.



> You're arguing over semantics. There is no definion of peaceful immigration, just immigration. When peoples immigrate they carry there own customs to their new country, is there some rule that they cannot bring their own traditions to another country ?
> 
> Invasion ? Invasion is an agressive intent to physically harm, If you immigrate and change a country but do not harm its nationals then nothing illegal has happened.


not at all. but to actually take part in the nation that said immigrants have emmigrated to, they must adopt the traditions of their new home as well. they MUST assimilate.



> A democratic country (a country that spends freedom ) accepts to uphold the rights of all whom wants to live inside that country and share its ideals, once they immigrate or call for those rights. If you were held captive inside China and were able to broadcast a world wide message, and with that message called on America to help you and if America is the defender of rights, than America should help.


first off, how does someone "spend freedom". and being held hostage inside China is different as i AM an American citizen. and i'd still LOVE to see any references that state that a democratic country is obligated to observe the rights of those who are not citizens of said democratic country. i can link to the Social Contract which is the keystone of a democracy if you like. why don't you link to the site that states all democratic countries must have open borders and defend anyone on the globe that wants to live there?

as an aside, anyone who steps beyond opinion and wants to argue concrete issues (how government works for example) should be EAGER to link to references. if not, you're just spouting opinion based rhetoric which any child can do. that's why when you're not talking about opinion, you really can be PROVEN wrong. that's how it works.

as an aside to User, you're a really good devil's advocate. it's hard to argue on the side of those who never actually have factual evidence to back up their claims.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Lol I was literally hated in certain debate classes.









I'm also glad that you've caught on to mis-spelt words (which people from other countries usually make) as one way to piss your debate buddy off and have he or she make more mistakes.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Uh OH, Iran's really trembling in terror now.

U.N. urges resolution of Iran seizure 



> UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council expressed "grave concern" Thursday over Iran's seizure of 15 British sailors and marines and called for an early resolution of the escalating dispute, but Iran's chief international negotiator suggested the captives might be put on trial.
> The council's statement wasn't as tough as Britain had hoped, though, and the divide seemed to deepen.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_...ish_seized_iran


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

UN:"We demand that you release the UK prisioners or else....or else we'll....we'll meet for days on end and agree to condemn you! But that is all. We won't do anything else."


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2007)

For once we agree. The UN has become a laughing stock. I wish Pearson was still around.


----------



## Round Head (Sep 26, 2005)

diddye said:


> UN:"We demand that you release the UK prisioners or else....or else we'll....we'll meet for days on end and agree to condemn you! But that is all. We won't do anything else."


Oh please don't be so silly. Of course the UN will do more than that, like giving them lots of money, US tax dollars that is.
And then the "Or else" tone set in which will be more US tax dollars on top of that. The UN will continue to do this fine deed until Iran gets tired and humiliated to accept US tax dollars. Then they will release half of the hostages.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

this really in conserning.

we need to get NATO to sit at the table.

forget about the UN.


----------



## WhiteLineRacer (Jul 13, 2004)

They have the bloody cheek to say we are reacting wrongly, frack em! they have captured innocent people then paraded them on national TV.

Makes me wanna go out and steal some Iranians.


----------



## Lucouk (Sep 29, 2006)

As a briton i feel to voice my views!!!!

Our Country is run by a fuckin JOKE!!!

And i think we are being taken for a ride by iran. We are ok while everything is running smooth but really our country is full of pussyies!!!!

We are always fucken made to respect other peoples views and feelings and religion and what not... Where the fook is our respect!!

Does anyone believe this sh*t.... I think Tony needs to stop thinking about tugging his meat and start firing his load

f*ck IRAQ AND IRAN (AND CANADA)


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

And yet again, king prick shows us his vast intelligence.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

So now Iran is having the hostages make propoganda statements. Great...
I wonder how long this will go on before Blair gets seriously pissed.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

CichlidAddict said:


> So now Iran is having the hostages make propoganda statements. Great...
> I wonder how long this will go on before Blair gets seriously pissed.


Check out this testosterone filled unequivocal language.



> "I don't know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this, all it does it heightens people's sense of disgust. Captured personel being paraded and manipulated in this way, it doesn't fool anyone," he (Blair) said in a brief statement. "And what *the Iranians have to realize is that if they continue in this way they will face continued isolation."*
> Blair said the present course of action must be to "*make sure that Iran is increasingly isolated*," adding that getting the troops set free "is the most important thing."


Wow! Blair's going to isolate Iran. I'm sure the Iranians are losing sleep over this.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Fargo said:


> So now Iran is having the hostages make propoganda statements. Great...
> I wonder how long this will go on before Blair gets seriously pissed.


Check out this testosterone filled unequivocal language.



> "I don't know why the Iranian regime keeps doing this, all it does it heightens people's sense of disgust. Captured personel being paraded and manipulated in this way, it doesn't fool anyone," he (Blair) said in a brief statement. "And what *the Iranians have to realize is that if they continue in this way they will face continued isolation."*
> Blair said the present course of action must be to "*make sure that Iran is increasingly isolated*," adding that getting the troops set free "is the most important thing."


Wow! Blair's going to isolate Iran. I'm sure the Iranians are losing sleep over this.
[/quote]

I believe they are losing sleep which is a cause for lashing out like this and doing "illegal acts"


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

*Here's a long term sollution*


----------



## weister42 (Apr 30, 2006)

I'm pretty sure if Iran executed them we'll have a huge war. As far as the 15 British detainees I'm sure they were pressured to say what they said on the news, something like "if you don't say this then you'll be beheaded" or that sort.

We'll see where this goes, for sure. Hopefully Iran is not stupid cause they might become the 2nd nation to eat a nuke.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

even if these prisoners were executed by the president himself on live tv, i dont think it would automatically lead britain to attack Iran.

lets get them to capture some Israelis. then we would see som responce, not just whining at the UN to "isolate" the contry..


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

Lucouk said:


> As a briton i feel to voice my views!!!!
> 
> Our Country is run by a fuckin JOKE!!!
> 
> ...


man, every post you write makes me think you are dumber and dumber...are you huffing kerosene or something?? maybe some glue? because it seems as though your brain is deteriorating at a stupendous rate.

why f*ck this thread up with your pathetic attempt at being funny...if that is what that was...

i would have thought that after all your previous attempts at humour failed, you might get the point and stop trying.


----------



## Lucouk (Sep 29, 2006)

Do you think i care what you say about me?

keep to the topic, i can say whatever i want this is a discusion forum, i wanted to place my 2 cents


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

I suppose a wise leader would totally concede to Iran that they are right, figuratively suck them off and all that. Then, when the hostages are freed, obliterate their nuclear facilities and tell them one of their cities is next.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

> CONDEMNATION of Iran grew last night after a second British hostage "confessed" to straying into Iranian waters, triggering calls from the European Union to release the 15 hostages immediately.
> 
> Ministers worked to isolate Iran internationally after Nathan Summers, 21, a Royal Navy sailor, was shown on Iranian TV. A voice was clearly audible in the background, prompting him on what to say.
> 
> ...


What a shock.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=498982007


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2007)

Lucouk said:


> Do you think i care what you say about me?
> 
> keep to the topic, i can say whatever i want this is a discusion forum, i wanted to place my 2 cents


Would you happen to be a gay muslim who is black and seeking asylum in England?


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Do you think i care what you say about me?
> 
> keep to the topic, i can say whatever i want this is a discusion forum, i wanted to place my 2 cents


Would you happen to be a gay muslim who is black and seeking asylum in England?
[/quote]

id put my money on that dannyboy. seems to fit the bill.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

*OOOOOHHH! Iran's really scared now.*


> President Bush on Saturday said Iran's capture of 15 British sailors and marines was "inexcusable" and called for Iran to "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally"


He finally speaks up. Man, those are some intimidating words.
[


> Britain, however, appeared to be easing its stance, emphasizing its desire to talk with Iran about what it termed a regrettable situation.
> "I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said at a European Union summit in Bremen, Germany. "What we want is a way out of it."


Fuckin' [email protected]



> _Blair has expressed disgust that the captured service members had been "paraded and manipulated" in video footage released by Iran. He warned Tehran that it faced increasing isolation if it did not free them._


There he goes with that isolation BS again.


----------



## tekish (Apr 1, 2007)

thats some crazy stuff


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

> Britain, however, appeared to be easing its stance, emphasizing its desire to talk with Iran about what it termed a regrettable situation.
> "I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said at a European Union summit in Bremen, Germany. "What we want is a way out of it."


lol



User said:


> Look at this situation another way;
> 
> What would happen if Iran didn't release the British Forces ? Probably not a damned thing.


^


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

now the british embassy is taking a beating too.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)




----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)




----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

User said:


> lol


You'd rather see 15 dead British soldiers then?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I'd rather see a stern UK government and the leaders of both UK & US actually speak with aggression.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

G23.40SW said:


> lol


You'd rather see 15 dead British soldiers then?
[/quote]

More people die in the long run if you appease. It's obvious the Iranians feel emboldened right now. Their culture only respects force. Hitler was appeased by Chamberlin and Stalin and look what happened. Israel is learning that with Iran. The recent war in Lebanon was a needless fiasco with way too many Israelies dying. Harbor terrorists: BOOM! kidnap soldiers: BOOM! One big boom and the kidnappings will stop. On the other hand, I would, however, be in favor of total deceitful appeasement, followed by release of the soldiers, followed by a massive bombing of Iran. Wait till Iran takes out an Israelie or European town. Then we'll wish we had taken care of them earlier.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Where's James Bond when you need him?









I'm only _partly _joking...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

acestro said:


> Where's James Bond when you need him?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what the world needs is several hundred thousand james bonds with good air support and kickass armored capability to march on tehran and show the ayatollahs and their stooges what nurumberg looks like. no clandestine solutions here we need the whole world to see that the west WILL strike back.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I guess Uncle Sam (know as federal funded Rebel Sam now) and young Srulik stands alone.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/pa...-name_page.html

For all you guys with ADD, here's a good article from a left-leaning British paper.

*TOOTHLESS BRITAIN TAKES IT LION DOWN *
Tony Parsons 02/04/2007



> HAS Britain's standing in the world ever been lower? The country that was once a byword for freedom is now seen as a bully and a weakling.
> 
> Bully enough to follow America's lead and cause mayhem in Iraq, but weak enough to stand meekly by while 14 British men and one woman are exhibited like trophies and gloated over by the mad thugs of Iran.
> 
> ...


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

Fargo said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/pa...-name_page.html
> 
> For all you guys with ADD, here's a good article from a left-leaning British paper.
> 
> ...


not a laughing matter but that had me lol'ing


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Fargo said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/pa...-name_page.html
> 
> For all you guys with ADD, here's a good article from a left-leaning British paper.
> 
> ...


Sad and true.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

The Mirror?

*The Mirror!?*

You post an article from The Mirror and call it good?

They're one of the most hated, spineless little cretins of the British press, people who read it are pricks.

You post plenty of text User, in an attempt to make your self look intelligent, but you're not really all that are you?

You can't be if you've been drawn in by The Daily Mirror.

They're still alive, and while they're still alive, the clever thing to do is try and get them home no matter what, even if it means those soldiers admitting Iran have been to the moon, it doesn't mean sh*t, and that's all they're using them for, you can even hear a voice telling them what to say in one of the videos, I doubt even the Iranians are thick enough to not realise they're being made to say those things.

If any harm comes to them, they'll wish they never crossed our path, until then, any threats to them will just be in their advantage, they'll see they're managing to rile us up, they're scared of us, those soldiers would be dead if they weren't.

Whilst they're still alive, they're going to give them back, if they kill them, their country will crumble and burn.

I value the lives of those 15 Soldiers more than every single Iranian, both as Britons and as members of Her majesty's forces.

The majority of the British public support war and non-diplomatic methods, they put one foot wrong and they're finished.

Only an ignorant fool would fail to see these simple facts, don't fool tact and intelligence with cowardice.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

User didn't post the article, I did. And the reason I posted from the Mirror is because I generally despise that publication, so I thought it was ironic that they had a good article. I think the thing to remember is what one, as a soldier, believes the best method of diplomacy is if they are illegally taken hostage. Should my country bend over like a bitch to save my life, or should it blast the aggressor even if it means killing me. If you believe as a soldier the first way, then the British are doing the right thing. If you believe the second way, than they are not. There's no good sollution to the problem; but I do know that Iran would not ever dare do this to the Chinese. So the Chinese, by establishing themselves as fuckers from the beginning, protect their troops wherever they might be.

Just as an aside, I wonder what the UN response would be if Israel were to kidnap the troops.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

G23.40SW said:


> The Mirror?
> 
> *The Mirror!?*
> 
> ...


I didn't post the article as Fargo mentioned. I did however, find the article in tune.

I sincerely hope that Europe/UK/Etc population doesn't confuse inability with "special tact" and "intelligence" and other cool words, just to save face and pretend there was ever going to be a military showdown.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

not to antagonize any brits on this site but Iran is NOT afraid of you. if they were, they would never have kidnapped your soldiers. and as much as i respect Tony Blair, he's not exactly been turning green and smashing things since this started.

and when comparing military numbers, a few things shouldn't be overlooked. Her Magesty currently has 421,830 total troops in all branches of the Royal military. the ayatollahs have 12,285,000 troops under their command. GRANTED, the caliber of training and equipment is downright UNFAIR but still, that's a lot of troops. that's more than anyone on earth including CHINA can muster.

Her Magesty will most likely NOT be smiting Iran like Sodom should the worst befall her troops and nor should she have to. the entire west should be coming down on what's now and has been since its inception, a rogue state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...of_total_troops


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

mdrs said:


> not to antagonize any brits on this site but Iran is NOT afraid of you. if they were, they would never have kidnapped your soldiers. and as much as i respect Tony Blair, he's not exactly been turning green and smashing things since this started.
> 
> and when comparing military numbers, a few things shouldn't be overlooked. Her Magesty currently has 421,830 total troops in all branches of the Royal military. the ayatollahs have *12,285,000 troops* under their command. GRANTED, the caliber of training and equipment is downright UNFAIR but still, that's a lot of troops. that's more than anyone on earth including CHINA can muster.
> 
> ...


Nuclear strikes will cut that number down real fast.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

RockinTimbz said:


> not to antagonize any brits on this site but Iran is NOT afraid of you. if they were, they would never have kidnapped your soldiers. and as much as i respect Tony Blair, he's not exactly been turning green and smashing things since this started.
> 
> and when comparing military numbers, a few things shouldn't be overlooked. Her Magesty currently has 421,830 total troops in all branches of the Royal military. the ayatollahs have *12,285,000 troops* under their command. GRANTED, the caliber of training and equipment is downright UNFAIR but still, that's a lot of troops. that's more than anyone on earth including CHINA can muster.
> 
> ...


Nuclear strikes will cut that number down real fast.
[/quote]

and how exactly is that an idea worth entertaining? are 15 lives worth a nuclear war? nuclear war won't solve or even abate this problem. it will exterminate a LOT of innocent people who we need to help us in this fight. keep in mind A GREAT MANY people in Iran don't support their government. so how is killing massive amounts of people who could help us a good idea?


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2007)

For once, we agree mdrs. We said.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

mdrs said:


> not to antagonize any brits on this site but Iran is NOT afraid of you. if they were, they would never have kidnapped your soldiers. and as much as i respect Tony Blair, he's not exactly been turning green and smashing things since this started.
> 
> and when comparing military numbers, a few things shouldn't be overlooked. Her Magesty currently has 421,830 total troops in all branches of the Royal military. the ayatollahs have *12,285,000 troops* under their command. GRANTED, the caliber of training and equipment is downright UNFAIR but still, that's a lot of troops. that's more than anyone on earth including CHINA can muster.
> 
> ...


Nuclear strikes will cut that number down real fast.
[/quote]

and how exactly is that an idea worth entertaining? are 15 lives worth a nuclear war? nuclear war won't solve or even abate this problem. it will exterminate a LOT of innocent people who we need to help us in this fight. keep in mind A GREAT MANY people in Iran don't support their government. so how is killing massive amounts of people who could help us a good idea?
[/quote]

yeah enjoy the fallout.

i wonder where nato is?


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

User said:


> not to antagonize any brits on this site but Iran is NOT afraid of you. if they were, they would never have kidnapped your soldiers. and as much as i respect Tony Blair, he's not exactly been turning green and smashing things since this started.
> 
> and when comparing military numbers, a few things shouldn't be overlooked. Her Magesty currently has 421,830 total troops in all branches of the Royal military. the ayatollahs have *12,285,000 troops* under their command. GRANTED, the caliber of training and equipment is downright UNFAIR but still, that's a lot of troops. that's more than anyone on earth including CHINA can muster.
> 
> ...


Nuclear strikes will cut that number down real fast.
[/quote]

and how exactly is that an idea worth entertaining? are 15 lives worth a nuclear war? nuclear war won't solve or even abate this problem. it will exterminate a LOT of innocent people who we need to help us in this fight. keep in mind A GREAT MANY people in Iran don't support their government. so how is killing massive amounts of people who could help us a good idea?
[/quote]

yeah enjoy the fallout.

i wonder where nato is?
[/quote]

Nuclear weapons don't = OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM FALLOUT!

Small tactical strikes on their major systems such as their water supplies and whatnot would quickly kill a lot of people.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

mdrs said:


> not to antagonize any brits on this site but Iran is NOT afraid of you. if they were, they would never have kidnapped your soldiers. and as much as i respect Tony Blair, he's not exactly been turning green and smashing things since this started.
> 
> and when comparing military numbers, a few things shouldn't be overlooked. Her Magesty currently has 421,830 total troops in all branches of the Royal military. the ayatollahs have *12,285,000 troops* under their command. GRANTED, the caliber of training and equipment is downright UNFAIR but still, that's a lot of troops. that's more than anyone on earth including CHINA can muster.
> 
> ...


Nuclear strikes will cut that number down real fast.
[/quote]

and how exactly is that an idea worth entertaining? are 15 lives worth a nuclear war? nuclear war won't solve or even abate this problem. it will exterminate a LOT of innocent people who we need to help us in this fight. keep in mind A GREAT MANY people in Iran don't support their government. so how is killing massive amounts of people who could help us a good idea?
[/quote]
How many lives are worth a nuclear war? Is there a set number? ..... and that was meant more as a joke.

Im sure there were alot of innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but dropping those bombs saved alot more lives than if they werent and the war went on.... and before you say "but we're not at war with Iran".. its only a matter of time.:nod:


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> not to antagonize any brits on this site but Iran is NOT afraid of you. if they were, they would never have kidnapped your soldiers. and as much as i respect Tony Blair, he's not exactly been turning green and smashing things since this started.
> 
> and when comparing military numbers, a few things shouldn't be overlooked. Her Magesty currently has 421,830 total troops in all branches of the Royal military. the ayatollahs have *12,285,000 troops* under their command. GRANTED, the caliber of training and equipment is downright UNFAIR but still, that's a lot of troops. that's more than anyone on earth including CHINA can muster.
> 
> ...


Nuclear strikes will cut that number down real fast.
[/quote]

and how exactly is that an idea worth entertaining? are 15 lives worth a nuclear war? nuclear war won't solve or even abate this problem. it will exterminate a LOT of innocent people who we need to help us in this fight. keep in mind A GREAT MANY people in Iran don't support their government. so how is killing massive amounts of people who could help us a good idea?
[/quote]

yeah enjoy the fallout.

i wonder where nato is?
[/quote]

Nuclear weapons don't = OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM FALLOUT!

Small tactical strikes on their major systems such as their water supplies and whatnot would quickly kill a lot of people.
[/quote]

well said G23.

britain doesnt have to invade iran to cause them a LOT of trouble. all they have to do is destroy a port or two and the country will slowly kill itself. without any british soldier setting foot on iranian soil (apart from the ones they captured and paraded around).


----------



## Alexx (Jan 20, 2006)

Iran is letting them all go free....bout time too

he's very clever that iranian scumbag


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

G23.40SW said:


> Nuclear weapons don't = OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM FALLOUT!
> 
> Small tactical strikes on their major systems such as their water supplies and whatnot would quickly kill a lot of people.


So then committing another act of state sponsored terrorism like Nagasaki is alright? Because people are going to die anyway?

I don't get the logic here.

"We're already going to kill a bunch. So let's just kill a sh*t load!"


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

G23.40SW said:


> Nuclear weapons don't = OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM FALLOUT!
> 
> Small tactical strikes on their major systems such as their water supplies and whatnot would quickly kill a lot of people.


So then committing another act of state sponsored terrorism like Nagasaki is alright? Because people are going to die anyway?

I don't get the logic here.

"We're already going to kill a bunch. So let's just kill a sh*t load!"
[/quote]

i'd really like to understand the skewed perspective that sees Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "state sponsored terrorism". so please, elaborate on that for me.


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

mdrs said:


> i'd really like to understand the skewed perspective that sees Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "state sponsored terrorism". so please, elaborate on that for me.


The Japanese were trying to surrender. The USA needed to demonstrate its military might and test out its new toy - twice. It was a war crime.

I'd like to see the skewed logic that says it was anything but a war crime or state sponsored terrorism.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

you show me the timeline of their surrender. you show me factual reference not just "it's common knowlege" that says that Truman KNEW they were trying to surrender, and i'll concede the point. some sort of verifiable news clipping, diary, or anything else. without that i'm supposed to take your word for it that we thought it would be a great idea to slaughter mass civilians to "test out our new toy"?


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Mettle said:


> i'd really like to understand the skewed perspective that sees Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "state sponsored terrorism". so please, elaborate on that for me.


The Japanese were trying to surrender. The USA needed to demonstrate its military might and test out its new toy - twice. It was a war crime.

I'd like to see the skewed logic that says it was anything but a war crime or state sponsored terrorism.
[/quote]
Trying to surrender? Are you serious??








That's an "interesting" view of history...

Anyway - back on topic.
That's great that Iran is releasing them, but are they still going to try to get Britain to say the hostages were in Iranian water and apologize?


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

> 1. The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor's personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.
> 
> 2. Any remaining Japanese reluctance to quit the war would have been quickly overcome by the second step, entry of the Soviet Union in August 1945.
> 
> ...


Read.



Admiral William D Leahy said:


> [T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .
> 
> _n being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. (See p. 3, Introduction)_


_



Chester W. Nimitz said:



Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

Click to expand...




William F. Halsey Jr. Commander US. Third Fleet said:



The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it. . . . [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before. (See p. 331, Chapter 26)

Click to expand...

_


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Just like conspiracy theories, you can find opinions like ^^^ about any topic.
There are about 50x more sources that say the opposite. Believe what you want I guess.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

Yes, the Admirals and so on were definitely conspiracy theorists.

Please, lets see the "50x" more sources saying the opposite. Preferably sources that aren't rambling "patriots" on a soapbox.

By the way, conspiracy theorys are ignored by people with knowledge of the topic....if I recall correctly your government rejected a commemorative stamp with a picture of the mushroom cloud because of this very debate. Im sure someone will say "that was under the Clinton administration, so who cares" but mdrs tells me that personal opinion doesnt matter, so it shouldnt in this situation.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

We already had this conversation:
http://www.piranha-fury.com/pfury/index.ph...mp;hl=hiroshima

I'm not going to waste time posting links for you that support my case since almost all historians concede it was the necessary thing to do at that time. I guess if you want to believe we were just testing out a new toy then go ahead. But I'll say you have a very low opinion of our country if you do...


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

CichlidAddict said:


> We already had this conversation:
> http://www.piranha-fury.com/pfury/index.ph...mp;hl=hiroshima
> 
> I'm not going to waste time posting links for you that support my case since almost all historians concede it was the necessary thing to do at that time. I guess if you want to believe we were just testing out a new toy then go ahead. But I'll say *you have a very low opinion of our country if you do...*


That's a given, but has nothing to do with this discussion. I mean when the Smithsonian...probably the greatest museum on earth (atleast in my opinion, I loved it) and a highly respected institution cancel's thier commemoration ceremonies because of this debate, I would say that not nearly close to all historians think it was necessary.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

the souce you stated said that dissident members of the government sought peace. that's true but also illegal according to Japanese law. and though Long does contend that the emperor (the only member of the government with the power to unilaterally seek peace) did seek peace, he has a curious lack of evidence proving it. as such, we seem to be at a bit of an impasse.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> I mean when the Smithsonian...probably the greatest museum on earth (atleast in my opinion, I loved it) and a highly respected institution cancel's thier commemoration ceremonies because of this debate, I would say that not nearly close to all historians think it was necessary.


I haven't read up on that cancellation, but I'd be willing to bet it was only done to "avoid offending anyone", not because it has a problem with the event itself.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

mdrs said:


> the souce you stated said that dissident members of the government sought peace. that's true but also illegal according to Japanese law. and though Long does contend that the emperor (the only member of the government with the power to unilaterally seek peace) did seek peace, he has a curious lack of evidence proving it. as such, we seem to be at a bit of an impasse.


Ive almost come to expect to see "Cichlid Addict, didye, mdrs" at the bottom of every political thread.:laugh:

With regards to our impasse, I dont think either side of the debate will ever truely be consiered right, as with any historical debate. And it isn't even to say I support one side or the other, I was simply debating the point that Mettle made as he isn't online.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

danny i know i'll always be able to trust you to take up any anti US argument. no worries.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

That you can sir.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.

He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain.

He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.

Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

Television pictures showed the Iranian president smiling and chatting with the crew


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

A "gift" huh?...
Iran's good at trying to make themselves look like the good guys, even though GPS data showed the sailers were in Iraqi waters when they were taken hostage.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

Do you have a link to that article or a picture?


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

the iranian pres was conserned the brits were using woman to carry out the missions. OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

where to beginn?


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

i dont have a link 
but a good source sent it too me 
from a uk or canda site


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

2032 Sources enough?


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2007)

I meant the satetlite image that shows the sailors on the Iraqi side.


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> I meant the satetlite image that shows the sailors on the Iraqi side.


I don't think there's an image (or if there is, it hasn't been released). The quote I'm referring to was on Page 2 of this thread:
"Britain's Defense Ministry said the Royal Navy personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters when they were seized. Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain also said it was "very clear" they were in Iraqi waters.

"We've been on operations there for several years," Aandahl said. He said coalition vessels respect a 1975 treaty between Iran and Iraq that sets the boundary between the two countries as running down the middle of the Shatt al-Arab."

I don't know about you, but I'm more inclined to believe this than Iran's "coordinates on a map". Oh, and if I remember correctly Iran produced a first map with coordinates that were still inside Iraqi waters. Then they produced a second map with coordinates inside Iranian waters.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6528235.stm

heres the link


----------



## Guest (Apr 5, 2007)

Nice, wasnt tryin to prove ya wrong or anything, was just interested.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

What an annoying derail. The atom bombs were an atrocity and were more of a part of the cold war to come than the end of WWII (but worked as both). We had a reason to show Russia what we were capable of (sad but true). Thank goodness America has gone to non-civilian targets more often than not, it is embarrassing and shameful that we dropped those bombs on well populated cities.







That said, it's not simply one side or the other that is correct on that debate (which belongs somewhere else)

ANYHOW.... this Iran situation is very strange. I think economic issues in Iran are weak enough that sanctions would work here much better than they did in Iraq. But Britain didn't want to bother with that. Either way, those people are safe. It's the future that's scary...


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

I stand by my prediction that the Iranians would never ever consider kidnapping Chinese soldiers, even if they had no business relationship with the Chinese. We're too soft now in the West. Why not kidnap soldiers, when all that's going to happen is you'll get yelled at. Thank God the soldiers are okay, but this won't be the last time.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

Mettle said:


> Nuclear weapons don't = OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM FALLOUT!
> 
> Small tactical strikes on their major systems such as their water supplies and whatnot would quickly kill a lot of people.


So then committing another act of state sponsored terrorism like Nagasaki is alright? Because people are going to die anyway?

I don't get the logic here.

"We're already going to kill a bunch. So let's just kill a sh*t load!"
[/quote]
Truman saved hundreds of thousands of lives over what an invasion of mainland Japan would have cost.


----------



## Mettle (Dec 29, 2003)

RockinTimbz said:


> Nuclear weapons don't = OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM FALLOUT!
> 
> Small tactical strikes on their major systems such as their water supplies and whatnot would quickly kill a lot of people.


So then committing another act of state sponsored terrorism like Nagasaki is alright? Because people are going to die anyway?

I don't get the logic here.

"We're already going to kill a bunch. So let's just kill a sh*t load!"
[/quote]
Truman saved hundreds of thousands of lives over what an invasion of mainland Japan would have cost.








[/quote]

Okay. So let's bomb Iran before we're 'forced' to go in there, too. Oh wait - Britain got their soldiers back - we're all good now.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

Mettle said:


> Nuclear weapons don't = OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM FALLOUT!
> 
> Small tactical strikes on their major systems such as their water supplies and whatnot would quickly kill a lot of people.


So then committing another act of state sponsored terrorism like Nagasaki is alright? Because people are going to die anyway?

I don't get the logic here.

"We're already going to kill a bunch. So let's just kill a sh*t load!"
[/quote]
Truman saved hundreds of thousands of lives over what an invasion of mainland Japan would have cost.








[/quote]

Okay. So let's bomb Iran before we're 'forced' to go in there, too. Oh wait - Britain got their soldiers back - we're all good now.:laugh:
[/quote]
..and you really thing this is the one time something like this is going to happen with Iran? Things are only going to get worse.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

I dont mean to sound pessimistic its just that there is no way with the way things are going with Iran the situation is going to get better with peace talks and sanctions.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Mettle said:


> Okay. So let's bomb Iran before we're 'forced' to go in there, too. Oh wait - Britain got their soldiers back - we're all good now.:laugh:


yeah we're all good. thank God those crazies aren't building nukes or leading the world's terrorists, huh? then we'd have a problem.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

mdrs said:


> Okay. So let's bomb Iran before we're 'forced' to go in there, too. Oh wait - Britain got their soldiers back - we're all good now.:laugh:


yeah we're all good. thank God those crazies aren't building nukes or leading the world's terrorists, huh? then we'd have a problem.
[/quote]


----------

