NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, According to Fox News reports the Islamic Republic of Iran has fired at, boarded and seized several british warships in the Persian Gulf.
The Iranian government confiscated weapons and regional maps of the area.
They are accusing the British of violating Iranian soverignty cause the ships were captured in Iranian territorial waters.

The Iranians are idiots. Did they even give the British warships a chance to get out of territorial waters?

Then again this was reported by Fox News, they are so "fair and balanced"

This was another outrageous iranian provocation.
The latest one was one against the IAEA demanding them to give them a "favourable" report.
Iran must comply, open all its atomic facilities for inspections and must release the british ships which were saving the border of Iraq and (very likely) going after oil smuglers who very often work together with Iranian smugglers.
If Iran doesn´t comply other options should be discussed: like targeted strikes against the nuclear facilities in Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5261548/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.ships/index.html
both cnn and msn are talking about it too.
They are holding the 8 british soldiers as POW's and are claiming the Brits committed an act of war.
The British government is negotiating their release.

They would have never done this under Thatcher.

The British response should be to immediately deploy fleets into the straits and the gulf in general. Fire on any Iranian Warship if they refuse to release the military servicemen. None of this tit for tat crap, send out the big guns and watch 'em squirm.

Well looks like its time to invade Iran. They need it there like Iraq was.

Well looks like its time to invade Iran. They need it there like Iraq was.

This post sure shows the ignorance of Americans. Ok, let's get this straight, the United States can not invade any country with a half-decent defense. Surely the British can't! You also don't know that Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact, and other allies of Iran include North Korea and China. Germany wouldn't like any invasion as they get alot of oil from Iran. Please think before you post idiotic things!

Well: from a pure technical view point: Iran is not only a big oil exporter: There is also a very important pipeline from Central Asia (Usbekistan) via Iran to Turkey.
Due to already high energy prices any disruptions could lead to very, very high prices and severe ramifications for the world economy.
Since the Iraqi pipelines aren´t safe and the iraqi oil export is still very low (lower than before the war under the embargo) an invasion of Iran isn´t feisable at the moment.
Due to the difficulties in Iraq I wouldn´t recommend to expand now towards Iran.
However another thing should be said as well: no country would interfere in a conflict US-Iran and of course the US would win very quickly (since the could attack from two sides (Iraq and Afghanistan)). But than a guerilla war would began.
I also see no country which would support such an invasion at the moment. Even the most loyal ally of the US Britain wouldn´t do so at the moment.

Attack Iran and you will start World War III. You'd have to be totally insane to believe that Russia, China and North Korea would not go to war to defend their Iranian allies.
Not to mention the Chechens, Albanians and the other nations Iran is allied with. This is why Bush and Blair have never threatened war over Iran's nuclear facilities. Unlike Iraq, Iran has lots of friends.

Right on Behesht!

I'm glad their are still intelligent human beings on the earth.

http://www.achu.bravehost.com

Amazing how Fox has turned 3 small boats with a combined crew of 8 men into warships :roll:
What a pathetic news service.

Get your news from somewhere unbiased: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3826179.stm

@The South Pacific

"Attack Iran and you will start World War III. You'd have to be totally insane to believe that Russia, China and North Korea would not go to war to defend their Iranian allies"
You are talking rubbish. No power would support the Iranians militarily.
However: I wouldn´t see an invasion of Iran as a smart thing to do.

"Not to mention the Chechens, Albanians and the other nations Iran is allied with. This is why Bush and Blair have never threatened war over Iran's nuclear facilities. Unlike Iraq, Iran has lots of friends."
No, they haven´t. Countries don´t have friends. Friendship beetween countries doesn´t exist. There are just common interests. And by the way: the Chechens are getting support by the Saudis which are the arch-enemies of the Iranians and the traditional allies of the US. Due to his relationship with Russia Iran is in fact trying to hinder support for the Chechens. Albania has NOTHING to do with this region. It is the poorest country in Europe and it is thankful to the US for liberating the Kosovo-Albanians. Albania has supported the US strike against Iraq, like many other East European countries.
With your statements you prove that you have no knowledge about international relations and that you are not qualified to make any valuable comments.

They would have never done this under Thatcher.

Yeah, just like the Argentinians would never have invaded the Falkland Islands if Thatcher had been in power then.

"With your statements you prove that you have no knowledge about international relations and that you are not qualified to make any valuable comments."



Iran and Saudi Arabia were never enemies. The closest they ever came to becoming enemies was in the Iran-Iraq war when Saudi Arabia was economically helping Iraq, as well as every other country in the world!

Iran still won. Now tell me that that isn't a powerful country. Back to the subject ... please get your facts straight ...Saudi Arabia and Iran are on neutral terms. The only enemy Iran really has is "the Great Satan".



Now look who's not qualified.

The Iranians are idiots. Did they even give the British warships a chance to get out of territorial waters?

Then again this was reported by Fox News, they are so "fair and balanced"

No offense, but do you think that under similar circumstances the US or Britain would just let foreign military craft out of their waters?


If there is any provocation here, it on the side of the Brits who should have stayed the hell out of Iranian waters.

But nothing will come of it, except that Tony Blair will have to do a GW and publicly suck some Iranian butt just like George did after the Chinese grabbed their spy plane.

-Z-

Would Iranian ships in America be treated decently? I doubt it.

You trespass, you pay. Of course, the British were probably spying on them.

In a war (which will not happen), I would support Iran. Not the government, but the people who have had enough of this from all parties.

The Iranians need to recognize the gravity of their actions. They seized warships in the Shat al-Arab waterway, an ill defined border that Iraq and Iran have had frequent border disputes about. At most, it was probably an honest mistake of the commanding officers in the Royal Navy.
The international community is not happy with Iran right now. This gives it more reason for it to grow leary, and perhaps take action. I wouldn't be surprised if some sanctions were in the horizon. Or perhaps the US will take a similar course of action that it took with Iran in the eighties: frequent skirmishes with Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf. Since that is a possibility, I guess I can't rule out the fact that this may lead to war, even though that isn't likely at this time.

The Iranians need to recognize the gravity of their actions. They seized warships in the Shat al-Arab waterway, an ill defined border that Iraq and Iran have had frequent border disputes about. At most, it was probably an honest mistake of the commanding officers in the Royal Navy.
The international community is not happy with Iran right now. This gives it more reason for it to grow leary, and perhaps take action. I wouldn't be surprised if some sanctions were in the horizon. Or perhaps the US will take a similar course of action that it took with Iran in the eighties: frequent skirmishes with Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf. Since that is a possibility, I guess I can't rule out the fact that this may lead to war, even though that isn't likely at this time.

I think once pressure is put on Iran, Iran will back down. They are already in hot water over their nuclear program. No need to add piracy to that list. This nearly sounds like 1812 all over again. I don't think this'll lead to war though. And i'm an American saying this.

The Iranians need to recognize the gravity of their actions. They seized warships in the Shat al-Arab waterway, an ill defined border that Iraq and Iran have had frequent border disputes about. At most, it was probably an honest mistake of the commanding officers in the Royal Navy.
The international community is not happy with Iran right now. This gives it more reason for it to grow leary, and perhaps take action. I wouldn't be surprised if some sanctions were in the horizon. Or perhaps the US will take a similar course of action that it took with Iran in the eighties: frequent skirmishes with Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf. Since that is a possibility, I guess I can't rule out the fact that this may lead to war, even though that isn't likely at this time.

I think once pressure is put on Iran, Iran will back down. They are already in hot water over their nuclear program. No need to add piracy to that list. This nearly sounds like 1812 all over again. I don't think this'll lead to war though. And i'm an American saying this.
Probably not. However, the atmosphere is there that may create a warlike aura surrounding Iran. Then again, North Korea seized the USS Pueblo, and US troops didn't march past the DMZ.

Iran should not bow down to the rich white men. An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There could be a Quasi War between Iran and either the U.K. or the U.S. I seriously doubt anyone involved would be quick to invade Iran. That would be pretty disasterous no matter who "wins."

I think there'll be a lot of bluster and a lot of aggressive posturing, then someone will back down and everything will be back to relative normalcy.

The Iranians are idiots. Did they even give the British warships a chance to get out of territorial waters?

Then again this was reported by Fox News, they are so "fair and balanced"

No offense, but do you think that under similar circumstances the US or Britain would just let foreign military craft out of their waters?


If there is any provocation here, it on the side of the Brits who should have stayed the hell out of Iranian waters.

But nothing will come of it, except that Tony Blair will have to do a GW and publicly suck some Iranian butt just like George did after the Chinese grabbed their spy plane.

-Z-

Ahmmm...the differenceis that our plane was indeed in international airspace...not seen anything regarding the british vessels and where they were located.

Theres no country on earth that could stand against America. Russia is to poor and if it wasnt it would be the exception.

There could be a Quasi War between Iran and either the U.K. or the U.S. I seriously doubt anyone involved would be quick to invade Iran. That would be pretty disasterous no matter who "wins."

I think there'll be a lot of bluster and a lot of aggressive posturing, then someone will back down and everything will be back to relative normalcy.
However, no one seems pleased about Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program. At the very least, this incident will strain tensions between the UK/NATO, and Iran.

Once again, I must say: Nuke the bastards. Send over an aircraft carrier with several hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles and start sprouting mushrooms. :twisted:


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)
Warlock's Sanctuary (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/tomwarlock/)

The Iranians are idiots. Did they even give the British warships a chance to get out of territorial waters?

Then again this was reported by Fox News, they are so "fair and balanced"

No offense, but do you think that under similar circumstances the US or Britain would just let foreign military craft out of their waters?


If there is any provocation here, it on the side of the Brits who should have stayed the hell out of Iranian waters.

But nothing will come of it, except that Tony Blair will have to do a GW and publicly suck some Iranian butt just like George did after the Chinese grabbed their spy plane.

-Z-

Ahmmm...the differenceis that our plane was indeed in international airspace...not seen anything regarding the british vessels and where they were located.

Actually, the biggest diference is thatn obody is going to militarily escalate anything with China, wheras Iran is a far less formidable foe.

The other fact is that these vessel siezures have benn ongoing lately as Iran and the UAE have each siezed boats of each other for similar violations.

But still I imagine it will be settled with a simple "gosh -navigation error... SORRY! we'll be more careful next time" sort of statement from London in order to secure their release.

Sometimes political expediency is taken instead of posturing, and Iran is likely to insist that it was not the one making an error - if only for political points at home so it can seem like the tough guy standing up to the big bad west.

-Z-

Theres no country on earth that could stand against America. Russia is to poor and if it wasnt it would be the exception.

China could.

Amazing how Fox has turned 3 small boats with a combined crew of 8 men into warships :roll:
What a pathetic news service.

Get your news from somewhere unbiased: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3826179.stm


It wasnt only Fox who said this, idiot. It was the initial claim by Iran that they had siezed British warships. CNN and friends on the radio used the word warship too.

You are an idiot. Thanks for embarassing yourself.

They would have never done this under Thatcher.

The British response should be to immediately deploy fleets into the straits and the gulf in general. Fire on any Iranian Warship if they refuse to release the military servicemen. None of this tit for tat crap, send out the big guns and watch 'em squirm.

Iran has 5 Nuclear Subs that we know of, if the Brits deploy then the Americans should follow I think, we have ubs and such in the area. However I do agree that a complete show of Force is the best courae of action.

Theres no country on earth that could stand against America. Russia is to poor and if it wasnt it would be the exception.

Depends on what you mean by "stand against"

The US could not occupy or pacify China. Not a chance in hell. You could remove it from the face of the earth, but you might just lose a city or three in the process too. And somehow - I don't think any President would be so rash as to try.

China could.
By sheer numbers, of course. They outnumber the US in citizens by at least 10 to 1. Imagine if only 10% were military. They'd have an army as large as the entire population of the US.


Greywollffe has spoken...

http://67.18.37.14/124/125/upload/av-476.jpg


King of Spades (http://198.70.62.5/home.asp)
It's a Warlock's Life (http://tswarlock.blogspot.com/)
Warlock's Sanctuary (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/tomwarlock/)

A war against China would be interesting. If the military develops the gun that shoots one million rounds a minute, it might make those mass numbers seem a bit less frightening.

China could.
[i][b][size=12][color=#777777] By sheer numbers, of course. They outnumber the US in citizens by at least 10 to 1. Imagine if only 10% were military. They'd have an army as large as the entire population of the US.

I think it's more like 4-1 (if China's population is 1.2 billion, the U.S. is right around 300 million). But that was my point.

Well looks like its time to invade Iran. They need it there like Iraq was.

This post sure shows the ignorance of Americans. Ok, let's get this straight, the United States can not invade any country with a half-decent defense. Surely the British can't! You also don't know that Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact, and other allies of Iran include North Korea and China. Germany wouldn't like any invasion as they get alot of oil from Iran. Please think before you post idiotic things!

That mutual-defense pact is strained as it is between Russia and Iran. The Russians didn't exactly enjoy seeing Russian hostages being taken back during the big Iranian hostage situation. They even threatened to invade. Don't expect them to honor that agreement. North Korea won't do squat either if they know what is good for them. They are on the U.S. hit list too. China on the other hand may be more sensitive. They have an army that would make ours run out of ammo. Their nukes can be taken care of quickly enough, but I really doubt they would come to the aid of Iran either. Oh, I almost forgot about Germany, but who cares what Germany thinks. And, the Iranians don't have half decent defences.

They would have never done this under Thatcher.

Yeah, just like the Argentinians would never have invaded the Falkland Islands if Thatcher had been in power then.

Ermm...The Argentinians didn't know what Thatcher would do. The Falkland War showed what Thatcher was made of when it came to aggression from another state.

Theres no country on earth that could stand against America. Russia is to poor and if it wasnt it would be the exception.

China could.

The only thing we have to fear from China is running out of ammo.

Well looks like its time to invade Iran. They need it there like Iraq was.

This post sure shows the ignorance of Americans. Ok, let's get this straight, the United States can not invade any country with a half-decent defense. Surely the British can't! You also don't know that Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact, and other allies of Iran include North Korea and China. Germany wouldn't like any invasion as they get alot of oil from Iran. Please think before you post idiotic things!

That mutual-defense pact is strained as it is between Russia and Iran. The Russians didn't exactly enjoy seeing Russian hostages being taken back during the big Iranian hostage situation. They even threatened to invade. Don't expect them to honor that agreement. North Korea won't do squat either if they know what is good for them. They are on the U.S. hit list too. China on the other hand may be more sensitive. They have an army that would make ours run out of ammo. Their nukes can be taken care of quickly enough, but I really doubt they would come to the aid of Iran either. Oh, I almost forgot about Germany, but who cares what Germany thinks. And, the Iranians don't have half decent defences.


You are the reason most people hate Americans. You are an imbecile. First off, you are truly ignorant if you think that North Korea wouldn't do anything. THE US BACKED DOWN FROM ANY CONFLICTS WITH NORTH KOREA!! The biggest act of aggression the US has pushed towards North Korea is giving it a spot on the "axis of evil". Oh my! They're in trouble now!! Without Germany and Japan, the United States wouldn't be a superpower you idiot. Last but not least, Iran could take Iraq 10 times over by itself. And how would the US take care of their nukes? The US doesn't have a fool-proof missile-interceptor yet. Go back to grade school, you fool.

Amazing how Fox has turned 3 small boats with a combined crew of 8 men into warships :roll:
What a pathetic news service.

Get your news from somewhere unbiased: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3826179.stm


It wasnt only Fox who said this, idiot. It was the initial claim by Iran that they had siezed British warships. CNN and friends on the radio used the word warship too.

You are an idiot. Thanks for embarassing yourself.

Actually, the statement from the Iranians was (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040621/wl_nm/britain_iran_seizure_dc_11)

"This morning three British vessels with eight crew entered the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters and Iran's naval forces, acting on their legal duty, confiscated the vessels and arrested the crew," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement.


"The crew are under investigation in order to clarify the issue," he added.

...

Revolutionary Guards spokesman Massoud Jazaeri told Reuters Iran was determined to defend its territorial integrity.


"Anyone from any nationality entering our waters will face the same response," Jazaeri said.



Hmm.... let's check other statements in the news for an official comment including the word "warship".
here? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040621/wl_afp/iran_britain_iraq_040621152459).... nope.

here? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3826179.stm).... nope.

You do of course have a source as the basis for your little rant? Even if you do - who really cares after a b*tchy little comment like that. So good of you to do your part to keep the board a polite place on which to have discussions.

:roll:

You are the reason most people hate Americans. You are an imbecile. First off, you are truly ignorant if you think that North Korea wouldn't do anything. THE US BACKED DOWN FROM ANY CONFLICTS WITH NORTH KOREA!! The biggest act of aggression the US has pushed towards North Korea is giving it a spot on the "axis of evil". Oh my! They're in trouble now!! Without Germany and Japan, the United States wouldn't be a superpower you idiot. Last but not least, Iran could take Iraq 10 times over by itself. And how would the US take care of their nukes? The US doesn't have a fool-proof missile-interceptor yet. Go back to grade school, you fool.
I asked my mom and she said thats the place where people call each other silly names.

^lol

If Iranian warships entered british waters, what would happen?


Exactly.

dp

You are the reason most people hate Americans. You are an imbecile. First off, you are truly ignorant if you think that North Korea wouldn't do anything. THE US BACKED DOWN FROM ANY CONFLICTS WITH NORTH KOREA!! The biggest act of aggression the US has pushed towards North Korea is giving it a spot on the "axis of evil". Oh my! They're in trouble now!! Without Germany and Japan, the United States wouldn't be a superpower you idiot. Last but not least, Iran could take Iraq 10 times over by itself. And how would the US take care of their nukes? The US doesn't have a fool-proof missile-interceptor yet. Go back to grade school, you fool.

I guess you never heard of the Korean War in which we fought them and drove them out of South Korea.

double post again!

Yea I know we couldnt occupy it but we could fight them and beat them but to occupy china we would use nukes.

Yea I know we couldnt occupy it but we could fight them and beat them but to occupy china we would use nukes.

And China would retailiate with nukes. Russia would too.

Yea I know we couldnt occupy it but we could fight them and beat them but to occupy china we would use nukes.

And China would retailiate with nukes. Russia would too.

No one would use nukes. The American Public and the International Community would not allow the launching of nukes. The only way America would fire a nuclear missile is if we were hit hard by nukes or some other weapon. Also America is the worlds only superpower. We could kick the crap out of China very easily if we used the bulk of our armament.

Ok... put away your rulers and calculators you armchair commandos trying to figure out which country can beat who! :roll:

This is a fine example of how cooler heads will prevail. UK doesn't need another war. Iran still wants to retain the ability to sell oil abroad to western countries. Some negotiations, some concessions on either side and the UK servicemen will be back in London in no time.

BTW, how exactly do you intend on extracting oil when the entire area is one massive radioactive glass sheet from a nuclear bombardment? :?:

War as we witnessed in Iraq, oil prices go though the roof. A nuclear war in the region and oil will be more expensive than caviar! Getting to work won't be your biggest problem, how about getting food from the fields to the cities?!? :shock: People will starve worldwide because fuel oil is too expensive! There are serious consequences for these actions.

You are the reason most people hate Americans. You are an imbecile. First off, you are truly ignorant if you think that North Korea wouldn't do anything. THE US BACKED DOWN FROM ANY CONFLICTS WITH NORTH KOREA!! The biggest act of aggression the US has pushed towards North Korea is giving it a spot on the "axis of evil". Oh my! They're in trouble now!! Without Germany and Japan, the United States wouldn't be a superpower you idiot. Last but not least, Iran could take Iraq 10 times over by itself. And how would the US take care of their nukes? The US doesn't have a fool-proof missile-interceptor yet. Go back to grade school, you fool.

I guess you never heard of the Korean War in which we fought them and drove them out of South Korea.
Actually China kicked America's ass in Korea, otherwise North Korea would currently be the 51st state with a puppet govenment whose strings stretch all the way to DC.

That's why Bush won't do anything to NK. If he does, he knows the Chinese will come pouring across the Chinese/Korean border and America will get its but kicked again. Just like it did in the first korean war, and in Vietnam.

That's why Bush won't do anything to NK. If he does, he knows the Chinese will come pouring across the Chinese/Korean border and America will get its but kicked again. Just like it did in the first korean war, and in Vietnam.

First Korean war was a draw. Neither side was willing to take it to the next step. Had China crossed the "line" then it could have started a nuclear reprisal which the U.S.A. had aluded to. China wasn't willing to lose and neither was the U.S..

No state protected Afghanistan nor Iraq when push came to shove. America shoved and states moved. The same situation would arise with Iran.

That's why Bush won't do anything to NK. If he does, he knows the Chinese will come pouring across the Chinese/Korean border and America will get its but kicked again. Just like it did in the first korean war, and in Vietnam.

First Korean war was a draw. Neither side was willing to take it to the next step. Had China crossed the "line" then it could have started a nuclear reprisal which the U.S.A. had aluded to. China wasn't willing to lose and neither was the U.S..

No state protected Afghanistan nor Iraq when push came to shove. America shoved and states moved. The same situation would arise with Iran.


also the korean war was fought under the u.n. so if iraq is an allied effort the korean war was that much more.

War as we witnessed in Iraq, oil prices go though the roof.

It has been accepted that the rising oil prices is not due to Iraq. People seem to forget that Iraqi oil exports were extremely limited pre-Gulf War II as sanctions kept the economy small.

The reason for rising oil prices (and rising prices for a lot of raw materials) is China's booming economy.

...and...Australian papers reported this morning that Iran seized 3 high speed British patrol boats used to catch smugglers. Apparently the British violated their water while helping to train Iraqis on the sea. The Irani news channel reported that they captured 3 warships. Naturally, this is just propaganda for the Muslim extremists who run these Middle Eastern countries. It helps them justify big military spending (against us "evil" Westerners :roll: ) while their people go without.

Well looks like its time to invade Iran. They need it there like Iraq was.

This post sure shows the ignorance of Americans. Ok, let's get this straight, the United States can not invade any country with a half-decent defense. Surely the British can't! You also don't know that Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact, and other allies of Iran include North Korea and China. Germany wouldn't like any invasion as they get alot of oil from Iran. Please think before you post idiotic things!

That mutual-defense pact is strained as it is between Russia and Iran. The Russians didn't exactly enjoy seeing Russian hostages being taken back during the big Iranian hostage situation. They even threatened to invade. Don't expect them to honor that agreement. North Korea won't do squat either if they know what is good for them. They are on the U.S. hit list too. China on the other hand may be more sensitive. They have an army that would make ours run out of ammo. Their nukes can be taken care of quickly enough, but I really doubt they would come to the aid of Iran either. Oh, I almost forgot about Germany, but who cares what Germany thinks. And, the Iranians don't have half decent defences.
And of course the truth s that there is no "mutual defence pact" between Russian and Iran.

Well looks like its time to invade Iran. They need it there like Iraq was.

This post sure shows the ignorance of Americans. Ok, let's get this straight, the United States can not invade any country with a half-decent defense. Surely the British can't! You also don't know that Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact, and other allies of Iran include North Korea and China. Germany wouldn't like any invasion as they get alot of oil from Iran. Please think before you post idiotic things!

That mutual-defense pact is strained as it is between Russia and Iran. The Russians didn't exactly enjoy seeing Russian hostages being taken back during the big Iranian hostage situation. They even threatened to invade. Don't expect them to honor that agreement. North Korea won't do squat either if they know what is good for them. They are on the U.S. hit list too. China on the other hand may be more sensitive. They have an army that would make ours run out of ammo. Their nukes can be taken care of quickly enough, but I really doubt they would come to the aid of Iran either. Oh, I almost forgot about Germany, but who cares what Germany thinks. And, the Iranians don't have half decent defences.
And of course the truth s that there is no "mutual defence pact" between Russian and Iran.


What the hell?? Ok you're an idiot. Who agrees with me on that statement?
I mean, go research it before you say something stupid like that.

War as we witnessed in Iraq, oil prices go though the roof.

It has been accepted that the rising oil prices is not due to Iraq. People seem to forget that Iraqi oil exports were extremely limited pre-Gulf War II as sanctions kept the economy small.

The reason for rising oil prices (and rising prices for a lot of raw materials) is China's booming economy.

...and...Australian papers reported this morning that Iran seized 3 high speed British patrol boats used to catch smugglers. Apparently the British violated their water while helping to train Iraqis on the sea. The Irani news channel reported that they captured 3 warships. Naturally, this is just propaganda for the Muslim extremists who run these Middle Eastern countries. It helps them justify big military spending (against us "evil" Westerners :roll: ) while their people go without.
Do you watch Iranian news channels or is the case of "Fox News said that Iranian TV said... warships"? -- Because Iranian gov't statements cited by Zeppistan speak of "vessels", not "warships". :wink:

Well looks like its time to invade Iran. They need it there like Iraq was.

This post sure shows the ignorance of Americans. Ok, let's get this straight, the United States can not invade any country with a half-decent defense. Surely the British can't! You also don't know that Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact, and other allies of Iran include North Korea and China. Germany wouldn't like any invasion as they get alot of oil from Iran. Please think before you post idiotic things!

That mutual-defense pact is strained as it is between Russia and Iran. The Russians didn't exactly enjoy seeing Russian hostages being taken back during the big Iranian hostage situation. They even threatened to invade. Don't expect them to honor that agreement. North Korea won't do squat either if they know what is good for them. They are on the U.S. hit list too. China on the other hand may be more sensitive. They have an army that would make ours run out of ammo. Their nukes can be taken care of quickly enough, but I really doubt they would come to the aid of Iran either. Oh, I almost forgot about Germany, but who cares what Germany thinks. And, the Iranians don't have half decent defences.
And of course the truth s that there is no "mutual defence pact" between Russian and Iran.


What the hell?? Ok you're an idiot. Who agrees with me on that statement?
I mean, go research it before you say something stupid like that.

War as we witnessed in Iraq, oil prices go though the roof.

It has been accepted that the rising oil prices is not due to Iraq. People seem to forget that Iraqi oil exports were extremely limited pre-Gulf War II as sanctions kept the economy small.

The reason for rising oil prices (and rising prices for a lot of raw materials) is China's booming economy.

...and...Australian papers reported this morning that Iran seized 3 high speed British patrol boats used to catch smugglers. Apparently the British violated their water while helping to train Iraqis on the sea. The Irani news channel reported that they captured 3 warships. Naturally, this is just propaganda for the Muslim extremists who run these Middle Eastern countries. It helps them justify big military spending (against us "evil" Westerners :roll: ) while their people go without.
Do you watch Iranian news channels or is the case of "Fox News said that Iranian TV said... warships"? -- Because Iranian gov't statements cited by Zeppistan speak of "vessels", not "warships". :wink:

No...not as in TV. The Al-Alam national Irani radio station described the vessels as "warships". Sorry for the confusion as to "news channel".

War as we witnessed in Iraq, oil prices go though the roof.

It has been accepted that the rising oil prices is not due to Iraq. People seem to forget that Iraqi oil exports were extremely limited pre-Gulf War II as sanctions kept the economy small.

The reason for rising oil prices (and rising prices for a lot of raw materials) is China's booming economy.

...and...Australian papers reported this morning that Iran seized 3 high speed British patrol boats used to catch smugglers. Apparently the British violated their water while helping to train Iraqis on the sea. The Irani news channel reported that they captured 3 warships. Naturally, this is just propaganda for the Muslim extremists who run these Middle Eastern countries. It helps them justify big military spending (against us "evil" Westerners :roll: ) while their people go without.
Do you watch Iranian news channels or is the case of "Fox News said that Iranian TV said... warships"? -- Because Iranian gov't statements cited by Zeppistan speak of "vessels", not "warships". :wink:

No...not as in TV. The Al-Alam national Irani radio station described the vessels as "warships". Sorry for the confusion as to "news channel".

Well: from a pure technical view point: Iran is not only a big oil exporter: There is also a very important pipeline from Central Asia (Usbekistan) via Iran to Turkey.
Due to already high energy prices any disruptions could lead to very, very high prices and severe ramifications for the world economy.
Since the Iraqi pipelines aren´t safe and the iraqi oil export is still very low (lower than before the war under the embargo) an invasion of Iran isn´t feisable at the moment.
Due to the difficulties in Iraq I wouldn´t recommend to expand now towards Iran.
However another thing should be said as well: no country would interfere in a conflict US-Iran and of course the US would win very quickly (since the could attack from two sides (Iraq and Afghanistan)). But than a guerilla war would began.
I also see no country which would support such an invasion at the moment. Even the most loyal ally of the US Britain wouldn´t do so at the moment.
Actually, it seems that in 2002 -- under pressure from the U.S. -- the Turks suspended gas imports through the Ankara-Tabriz pipeline that you're referring to.
http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/Sept%202002/Turkey%20switches%20gas%20imports%20from%20Iran%20to%20Russia%20090902a.htm

Americans are obviously striving very hard to make sure that export routes for Central Asian oil & gas bypass Iran, so that Iranians do not get any additional leverage or hard-currency income. Here's a pretty interesting source on these pipeline maneuverings:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/centasia.html

That's why Bush won't do anything to NK. If he does, he knows the Chinese will come pouring across the Chinese/Korean border and America will get its but kicked again. Just like it did in the first korean war, and in Vietnam.

First Korean war was a draw. Neither side was willing to take it to the next step. Had China crossed the "line" then it could have started a nuclear reprisal which the U.S.A. had aluded to. China wasn't willing to lose and neither was the U.S..

No state protected Afghanistan nor Iraq when push came to shove. America shoved and states moved. The same situation would arise with Iran.


That's because these countries had no allies at all. Iran does.

Well looks like its time to invade Iran. They need it there like Iraq was.

This post sure shows the ignorance of Americans. Ok, let's get this straight, the United States can not invade any country with a half-decent defense. Surely the British can't! You also don't know that Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact, and other allies of Iran include North Korea and China. Germany wouldn't like any invasion as they get alot of oil from Iran. Please think before you post idiotic things!

That mutual-defense pact is strained as it is between Russia and Iran. The Russians didn't exactly enjoy seeing Russian hostages being taken back during the big Iranian hostage situation. They even threatened to invade. Don't expect them to honor that agreement. North Korea won't do squat either if they know what is good for them. They are on the U.S. hit list too. China on the other hand may be more sensitive. They have an army that would make ours run out of ammo. Their nukes can be taken care of quickly enough, but I really doubt they would come to the aid of Iran either. Oh, I almost forgot about Germany, but who cares what Germany thinks. And, the Iranians don't have half decent defences.
And of course the truth s that there is no "mutual defence pact" between Russian and Iran.


What the hell?? Ok you're an idiot. Who agrees with me on that statement?
I mean, go research it before you say something stupid like that.
Rather than scream idiot at everyone and their brother, go ahead and publish a URL link to the text of the supposed mutual defence pact or even to any reputable sources confirming the existence of such pact.

At most, it was probably an honest mistake of the commanding officers in the Royal Navy.

The international community is not happy with Iran right now. This gives it more reason for it to grow leary, and perhaps take action. I wouldn't be surprised if some sanctions were in the horizon.

Okay first there were only 8 people on the three ships combined, commanding officer?! What do we know that goes into enemy territory in small numbers secretly, oh yeah spies.

Everyone is over reacting to it just like they did when china shot down a us spy plane. if you take military unit into enemy territory dont be surprised when they kill you/ take you prisoner.

As for sanctions they're the most detramental thing for human rights the whole shitty UN has come up with. In Iraq 140,000 children were malnourished due to snactions. Only 3/10 children survived to live longer than 5 years after birth. 70,000 people died a year from malnourishment. All while Sadam was living it up in his palace. Really great.

Or, why dont you just nuke them like you did Japan. I'm sure 2 nukes and 300,000 civilain deaths later Iran will stop its nuclear POWER program and surrender. Another great American victory go you!

Snore>

School must be out.

Seems like more trolls then usual.....

At most, it was probably an honest mistake of the commanding officers in the Royal Navy.

The international community is not happy with Iran right now. This gives it more reason for it to grow leary, and perhaps take action. I wouldn't be surprised if some sanctions were in the horizon.

Okay first there were only 8 people on the three ships combined, commanding officer?! What do we know that goes into enemy territory in small numbers secretly, oh yeah spies.

Everyone is over reacting to it just like they did when china shot down a us spy plane. if you take military unit into enemy territory dont be surprised when they kill you/ take you prisoner.

As for sanctions they're the most detramental thing for human rights the whole shitty UN has come up with. In Iraq 140,000 children were malnourished due to snactions. Only 3/10 children survived to live longer than 5 years after birth. 70,000 people died a year from malnourishment. All while Sadam was living it up in his palace. Really great.

Or, why dont you just nuke them like you did Japan. I'm sure 2 nukes and 300,000 civilain deaths later Iran will stop its nuclear POWER program and surrender. Another great American victory go you!

At most, it was probably an honest mistake of the commanding officers in the Royal Navy.

The international community is not happy with Iran right now. This gives it more reason for it to grow leary, and perhaps take action. I wouldn't be surprised if some sanctions were in the horizon.

Okay first there were only 8 people on the three ships combined, commanding officer?! What do we know that goes into enemy territory in small numbers secretly, oh yeah spies.

Everyone is over reacting to it just like they did when china shot down a us spy plane. if you take military unit into enemy territory dont be surprised when they kill you/ take you prisoner.

As for sanctions they're the most detramental thing for human rights the whole shitty UN has come up with. In Iraq 140,000 children were malnourished due to snactions. Only 3/10 children survived to live longer than 5 years after birth. 70,000 people died a year from malnourishment. All while Sadam was living it up in his palace. Really great.

Or, why dont you just nuke them like you did Japan. I'm sure 2 nukes and 300,000 civilain deaths later Iran will stop its nuclear POWER program and surrender. Another great American victory go you!

n000000000000b

okay folks it was just 8 soldiers and nobody died, iran will give them back, keep the dingies and the small arms. everyone will puff up their chests for a few days, then it will blow over.

okay folks it was just 8 soldiers and nobody died, iran will give them back, keep the dingies and the small arms. everyone will puff up their chests for a few days, then it will blow over.

Ok...let us change the rules slightly :wink: What if it had been 3 actual warships instead? (we are now under the assumption that Iran got them OK - so none of "they aren't capable etc). What would happen then?

What would WE do if we spotted three Iranian ships scouting along our coastline and estuaries? If three small Iranian boats with armed soldiers aboard darted up the English Channel and up to Portsmouth?
Arrest them. So why are we bothered that they've done the same? It's just political posturing, it'll blow over soon.

okay folks it was just 8 soldiers and nobody died, iran will give them back, keep the dingies and the small arms. everyone will puff up their chests for a few days, then it will blow over.

Ok...let us change the rules slightly :wink: What if it had been 3 actual warships instead? (we are now under the assumption that Iran got them OK - so none of "they aren't capable etc). What would happen then?
Then it's time to surrender. :lol:
Because if motherfreaking IRANIANS can capture 3 of Her Majesty's warships, then just think what the BELGIANS will do. :lol:

Ha ha! That'll learn them for joining the "armed welfare bum society".

What would WE do if we spotted three Iranian ships scouting along our coastline and estuaries? If three small Iranian boats with armed soldiers aboard darted up the English Channel and up to Portsmouth?
Arrest them. So why are we bothered that they've done the same? It's just political posturing, it'll blow over soon.

Yes. However, we might be a tad more concerned than the Iranians were, since the Iranian military has no operations within a few miles of Portsmouth... :)

What would WE do if we spotted three Iranian ships scouting along our coastline and estuaries? If three small Iranian boats with armed soldiers aboard darted up the English Channel and up to Portsmouth?
Arrest them. So why are we bothered that they've done the same? It's just political posturing, it'll blow over soon.

Yes. However, we might be a tad more concerned than the Iranians were, since the Iranian military has no operations within a few miles of Portsmouth... :)

Of course. I'd give them a prize for having floated all the way here from the Gulf. But what I was saying is they're perfectly entitled to arrest them.

Amazing how Fox has turned 3 small boats with a combined crew of 8 men into warships :roll:
What a pathetic news service.

Get your news from somewhere unbiased: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3826179.stm


It wasnt only Fox who said this, idiot. It was the initial claim by Iran that they had siezed British warships. CNN and friends on the radio used the word warship too.

You are an idiot. Thanks for embarassing yourself.

Actually, the statement from the Iranians was (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040621/wl_nm/britain_iran_seizure_dc_11)

"This morning three British vessels with eight crew entered the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters and Iran's naval forces, acting on their legal duty, confiscated the vessels and arrested the crew," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement.


"The crew are under investigation in order to clarify the issue," he added.

...

Revolutionary Guards spokesman Massoud Jazaeri told Reuters Iran was determined to defend its territorial integrity.


"Anyone from any nationality entering our waters will face the same response," Jazaeri said.



Hmm.... let's check other statements in the news for an official comment including the word "warship".
here? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040621/wl_afp/iran_britain_iraq_040621152459).... nope.

here? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3826179.stm).... nope.

You do of course have a source as the basis for your little rant? Even if you do - who really cares after a b*tchy little comment like that. So good of you to do your part to keep the board a polite place on which to have discussions.

:roll:

To be fair there Zeppistan...both newsbits speak of Naval vessels, it's easy enough assume the word "warship" would initially be used..I mean a "naval vessel" to me doesn't come out as a small dingy or patrol boat, but a Ship of the Line...easy enough assumption.

They would have never done this under Thatcher.

The British response should be to immediately deploy fleets into the straits and the gulf in general. Fire on any Iranian Warship if they refuse to release the military servicemen. None of this tit for tat crap, send out the big guns and watch 'em squirm.

Yeah, and see the nice suicide bombers going off in London! Hoorray! Let us all have a party!

Amazing how Fox has turned 3 small boats with a combined crew of 8 men into warships :roll:
What a pathetic news service.

Get your news from somewhere unbiased: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3826179.stm


It wasnt only Fox who said this, idiot. It was the initial claim by Iran that they had siezed British warships. CNN and friends on the radio used the word warship too.

You are an idiot. Thanks for embarassing yourself.

Actually, the statement from the Iranians was (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040621/wl_nm/britain_iran_seizure_dc_11)

"This morning three British vessels with eight crew entered the Islamic Republic of Iran's waters and Iran's naval forces, acting on their legal duty, confiscated the vessels and arrested the crew," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement.


"The crew are under investigation in order to clarify the issue," he added.

...

Revolutionary Guards spokesman Massoud Jazaeri told Reuters Iran was determined to defend its territorial integrity.


"Anyone from any nationality entering our waters will face the same response," Jazaeri said.



Hmm.... let's check other statements in the news for an official comment including the word "warship".
here? (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040621/wl_afp/iran_britain_iraq_040621152459).... nope.

here? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3826179.stm).... nope.

You do of course have a source as the basis for your little rant? Even if you do - who really cares after a b*tchy little comment like that. So good of you to do your part to keep the board a polite place on which to have discussions.

:roll:

To be fair there Zeppistan...both newsbits speak of Naval vessels, it's easy enough assume the word "warship" would initially be used..I mean a "naval vessel" to me doesn't come out as a small dingy or patrol boat, but a Ship of the Line...easy enough assumption.


Well, I would tend to still view "warship" as being a more charged word than "vessel", however whatever the assumption I was mostly just annoyed with the instant jump to purile name-calling by Veiktorya.

School must be getting out because we seem to have a whole lot more juvenile behaviour going on lately.


Note to newbies: The words "idiot" and "stupid" do not enhance your argument. They just diminish our opinion... of YOU!

-Z-

Ahmmm...the differenceis that our plane was indeed in international airspace...not seen anything regarding the british vessels and where they were located.

Actually, the Chinese behaved quite decently that time. Sure, they never admitted that the incident was caused by an error of their pilot, but they also didn't dismantle the US plane after it landed on its base and everything was resolved relatively quickly.

That's what having most favorite trading nation status (or however they call it) gets you.

The only thing we have to fear from China is running out of ammo.

And empty Walmarts

-Looks at list of Countries about to get their Ass kicked by America- Oh look Iran is next :D

No one would use nukes. The American Public and the International Community would not allow the launching of nukes. The only way America would fire a nuclear missile is if we were hit hard by nukes or some other weapon. Also America is the worlds only superpower. We could kick the crap out of China very easily if we used the bulk of our armament.

Yeah, using every single available man, reinstating the draft, converting to a war economy, pulling out of Iraq, Afganistan, Korea and every other place (I wonder if the people in those places would take advantage), and even so you would suffer very serious casualties, military and civilian. Not to mention that at home prices of almost every product would skyrocket.

Hardly what I would call "easy".

Why would we go to war with china? What interest do they have in Iran? Last i checked we had good realations with china at least trade wise and aren't they having some internal conflict going on right now any way? :?

No one would use nukes. The American Public and the International Community would not allow the launching of nukes. The only way America would fire a nuclear missile is if we were hit hard by nukes or some other weapon. Also America is the worlds only superpower. We could kick the crap out of China very easily if we used the bulk of our armament.

Yeah, using every single available man, reinstating the draft, converting to a war economy, pulling out of Iraq, Afganistan, Korea and every other place (I wonder if the people in those places would take advantage), and even so you would suffer very serious casualties, military and civilian. Not to mention that at home prices of almost every product would skyrocket.

Hardly what I would call "easy".


Does china have alot of "smart" bombs, like the ones America used on Iraq and Afganistan? If they do then it'll be a much harder fight... but if not then we have the most effective weapon and the last time i checked we have a sh*t load of them. Also America's air force is probably better than china's giving America air superiority. And I think the American navy is also better than the Chinese... All they have is numbers, and fully automatic weapons or big explosions take care of numbers rather effectivly.

Speaking as a Brit I can safely say there is no chance of invading Iran as a result of this incident. You all speak as if the HMS Arc Royale was captured:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40297000/jpg/_40297349_shatt2_afp203i.jpg
They're not even armed!

After a few negotiations the sailors will be released, although they were careless in wandering over the border in the first place, to be honest.

At most, it was probably an honest mistake of the commanding officers in the Royal Navy.

The international community is not happy with Iran right now. This gives it more reason for it to grow leary, and perhaps take action. I wouldn't be surprised if some sanctions were in the horizon.

Okay first there were only 8 people on the three ships combined, commanding officer?! What do we know that goes into enemy territory in small numbers secretly, oh yeah spies.

Everyone is over reacting to it just like they did when china shot down a us spy plane. if you take military unit into enemy territory dont be surprised when they kill you/ take you prisoner.

As for sanctions they're the most detramental thing for human rights the whole shitty UN has come up with. In Iraq 140,000 children were malnourished due to snactions. Only 3/10 children survived to live longer than 5 years after birth. 70,000 people died a year from malnourishment. All while Sadam was living it up in his palace. Really great.

Or, why dont you just nuke them like you did Japan. I'm sure 2 nukes and 300,000 civilain deaths later Iran will stop its nuclear POWER program and surrender. Another great American victory go you!
Food and medicine, of course, could never be sanctioned, just like they weren't in Iraq. The reason why so many died was because Hussein didn't even have the will to rebuild anything.
And they couldn't be spying. This was in the Shat al-Arab, a relatively thin waterway that Iraq and Iran have been disputing for years. Perhaps a terrorist was fleeing across the river in a boat, and the sailors were trying to pursue it. Or perhaps they were in antimining operations. Whatever the cause, two sailors and six marines aren't great for reconnaissance. Besides, it's relatively easy for Britain to spy on Iran without human intelligence.

What would WE do if we spotted three Iranian ships scouting along our coastline and estuaries? If three small Iranian boats with armed soldiers aboard darted up the English Channel and up to Portsmouth?
Arrest them. So why are we bothered that they've done the same? It's just political posturing, it'll blow over soon.
That depends if they were spotted on the East Coast, or on the English channel, in that thin part from Dover to Calais. That's the type of situation here.

Food and medicine, of course, could never be sanctioned, just like they weren't in Iraq. The reason why so many died was because Hussein didn't even have the will to rebuild anything.
And they couldn't be spying. This was in the Shat al-Arab, a relatively thin waterway that Iraq and Iran have been disputing for years. Perhaps a terrorist was fleeing across the river in a boat, and the sailors were trying to pursue it. Or perhaps they were in antimining operations. Whatever the cause, two sailors and six marines aren't great for reconnaissance. Besides, it's relatively easy for Britain to spy on Iran without human intelligence.




Euclid, while you are technically correct - let's be honest about the sanctions.

The sanction placed against Iraq in Resolution 661 placed a blanket ban on all imports and exports except for "supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs." Now you can say "See! food and medicine was allowed!", but you rather forget to point out that the ban on any other trade and the concurrent freezing of all of Iraq's offshore assets meant that while they were technically allowed to buy food and medicines, they were denied any opportunity to engage in any trade to generate the currency required to purchase these items.

It would be like you being told "sure you can support your family. You just aren't allowed to work, sell any of your possessions, or engage in any other activity that would allow you to... support your family".

And so eventually they had to put the oil for food program in place in order to ensure that the whole country did not completely starve to death or die of preventable disease.


Indeed, in 1995 researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers bluntly stated, "The price is worth it."

Turned out the study was flawed and the numbers were significantly lower - with the generally agreed upon number that I've seen being closer to 220,000 unneccessary child deaths (still an abhorent number in my opinion), but Albright's comment was pretty indicative of the US/UK mindset since the Gulf War. Nobody gave a damn how many civilians paid the price at the same time as they were denigrating Saddam for his own abuses of his citizenship.

iran deserves to be invaded they're just lookin for a fight.... becuz they're a small insignifigant country they r tryin to make a name for themselves by bein ruthless.... but wat they dont realize this cuzes tension between nations that could eventually result in a nuclear war.... and that in itself is never a good thing... i think iran should just surrender the pow's before sometime like WWIII breaks out

to support sydia the world just trigger happy... wer all just blowin this whole thing outta proportion.... its not worth the trouble its cuzin

To add to the comment that China wouldn't be so easy to defeat... it would take the ENTIRE might of the U.S. military after doing all the things (such as reinstate the draft) mentioned.

Not only that, but there would be conscientious objectors and people who leave the U.S. to escape the war zones. If the U.S. beat China, it would be a Phyrric victory at best.

I am hardly here to lionize China; I think they should be part of the "Axis of Evil" and I think they're the biggest threat to world peace other than a George W. Bush-led USA.

To add to the comment that China wouldn't be so easy to defeat... it would take the ENTIRE might of the U.S. military after doing all the things (such as reinstate the draft) mentioned.

Not only that, but there would be conscientious objectors and people who leave the U.S. to escape the war zones. If the U.S. beat China, it would be a Phyrric victory at best.

I am hardly here to lionize China; I think they should be part of the "Axis of Evil" and I think they're the biggest threat to world peace other than a George W. Bush-led USA.

The China boogieman is nothing more then that.

China is trying to become an economic might. My workmate just visited and said there is a major effort to teach english. They want the job outsourcing/exporting business.

It is said they are one of the fastest growing economies so why toss that to defend Iran?

That's why Bush won't do anything to NK. If he does, he knows the Chinese will come pouring across the Chinese/Korean border and America will get its but kicked again. Just like it did in the first korean war, and in Vietnam.

First Korean war was a draw. Neither side was willing to take it to the next step. Had China crossed the "line" then it could have started a nuclear reprisal which the U.S.A. had aluded to. China wasn't willing to lose and neither was the U.S..

No state protected Afghanistan nor Iraq when push came to shove. America shoved and states moved. The same situation would arise with Iran.
Iraq and Afghanistan had zero allies. That's whats different. If you think China and Russia would allow one of their allies to be attacked you need to go back to school and learn a few things.

1. British warboats found in Iranian waters is likely to freak the Iranians out. It's totally understandable for Iran to detain the people found on the boats. I mean, thinking the other way, imagine Iranians warboats being found off the coast of England. What would Britain do?

2. Can't people just face the fact that China is not communist, not hegemonous, and likes to enjoy good relations with the Islamic world?

iran deserves to be invaded they're just lookin for a fight.... becuz they're a small insignifigant country they r tryin to make a name for themselves by bein ruthless.... but wat they dont realize this cuzes tension between nations that could eventually result in a nuclear war.... and that in itself is never a good thing... i think iran should just surrender the pow's before sometime like WWIII breaks out

lol. Yeah... clearly its Iran looking for a fight. Not the people who think countries "deserve to be invaded" for a little political noise...

:roll:

BTW, perhaps you should brush up on your understanding of the most basic precepts of law, or rather - perhaps you should GET a basic understanding of law. People arrested for the charge of being unlawfully in sovereign territory are not considered POWs. Illegal immigrants perhaps. Suspected spies perhaps. But you first need a war in order to be considered a prisoner thereof.

-Z-

[quote="Whittier"Iraq and Afghanistan had zero allies. That's whats different. If you think China and Russia would allow one of their allies to be attacked you need to go back to school and learn a few things.[/quote]

Dude, Russia won't help Iran for crap. The only reason they care about Iran is because it is a source of oil, and Iran has pissed them off plenty. There have been a few occasions when Russia has threatened to invade Iran. Those two are not on the friendliest of terms. China could really care less about Iran's fate as well. As long as the oil doesn't get disrupted too much, China would sit back and laugh while Tehran gets turned into a moonscape. Iran has no real allies. In a war unless the oil they pump out is put in serious jeopardy, they can expect no help.

Iran not having allies doesn't mean that countries won't protest in the case of a British/American invasion.

To add to the comment that China wouldn't be so easy to defeat... it would take the ENTIRE might of the U.S. military after doing all the things (such as reinstate the draft) mentioned.

I US Carrier has enough firepower to wipe the East Coast of China from the face of the planet. Since that is where all the industry and commerical centres are, it would be a quick victory should the USA be pushed to the extent that the President ordered a full strike against the Chinese mainland.

However, the US would more than likely use ICBM's and Carrier Power.

The US is militarily invincible. Nobody could oppose the USA and win (nation wise).

The US is militarily invincible. Nobody could oppose the USA and win (nation wise).

Vietnam. :lol:

The US is militarily invincible. Nobody could oppose the USA and win (nation wise).

Vietnam. :lol:

The Vietnamese never won. The US pulled out after taking 90% of the country. That, and the US played it differently to their strategy today. Bombings of cities were banned and US troops could not cross into Cambodia to capture renegades.

You will find that much has changed since the 1960's and early 'seventies.

The US is militarily invincible. Nobody could oppose the USA and win (nation wise).

Vietnam. :lol:

The Vietnamese never won. The US pulled out after taking 90% of the country. That, and the US played it differently to their strategy today. Bombings of cities were banned and US troops could not cross into Cambodia to capture renegades.

You will find that much has changed since the 1960's and early 'seventies.

You're not the brightest crayon in the box. The US lost. It lost because it did not achiave its objectives to overthrow the communist regime. Small enough sentences for you? No? Maybe it's your bed-time.


And what is it with this clown making up stories about Russia threatening to invade Iran? The Iranian regime is quite brash and wouldn't tolerate threats so they would probably have gone to war if any of these threats were made. Show me your proof. Maybe Iran should invade Britain? It has the capabilities to do so...

dp

dp

I wouldn't be surprised if .....perhaps the US will take a similar course of action that it took with Iran in the eighties: frequent skirmishes with Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf...Yeah...we even shot down one of their big AirLiners...thats what it took...at that point they decided to give up....

Doesn't matter now!

Iran is releasing all of them! The situation is over!

THANK GOD!!!!

Shit ... I was hoping to bomb them too! :cry:

you mean we went through all this because the Brits actually managed to get lost in the middle of the most violent conflict laden waterway in the past 25 years, and Iran give them back without making Blair admit to violating the international border? I wonder what Kharazzi got out of Blair - maybe for the UK to play nice at the next IAEA meeting? hm......

Or maybe they had no real sensible alternative.

Food and medicine, of course, could never be sanctioned, just like they weren't in Iraq. The reason why so many died was because Hussein didn't even have the will to rebuild anything.
And they couldn't be spying. This was in the Shat al-Arab, a relatively thin waterway that Iraq and Iran have been disputing for years. Perhaps a terrorist was fleeing across the river in a boat, and the sailors were trying to pursue it. Or perhaps they were in antimining operations. Whatever the cause, two sailors and six marines aren't great for reconnaissance. Besides, it's relatively easy for Britain to spy on Iran without human intelligence.




Euclid, while you are technically correct - let's be honest about the sanctions.

The sanction placed against Iraq in Resolution 661 placed a blanket ban on all imports and exports except for "supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs." Now you can say "See! food and medicine was allowed!", but you rather forget to point out that the ban on any other trade and the concurrent freezing of all of Iraq's offshore assets meant that while they were technically allowed to buy food and medicines, they were denied any opportunity to engage in any trade to generate the currency required to purchase these items.

It would be like you being told "sure you can support your family. You just aren't allowed to work, sell any of your possessions, or engage in any other activity that would allow you to... support your family".

And so eventually they had to put the oil for food program in place in order to ensure that the whole country did not completely starve to death or die of preventable disease.

Indeed, in 1995 researchers with a Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) study in Iraq wrote to The Lancet, the journal of the British Medical Society, asserting that sanctions were responsible for the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children. The New York Times picked up the story and declared "Iraq Sanctions Kill Children." CBS followed up with a segment on 60 Minutes that repeated the numbers and depicted sanctions as a murderous assault on children. This was the program in which UN ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, when asked about these numbers bluntly stated, "The price is worth it."

Turned out the study was flawed and the numbers were significantly lower - with the generally agreed upon number that I've seen being closer to 220,000 unneccessary child deaths (still an abhorent number in my opinion), but Albright's comment was pretty indicative of the US/UK mindset since the Gulf War. Nobody gave a damn how many civilians paid the price at the same time as they were denigrating Saddam for his own abuses of his citizenship.
It's why the oil for food program was instituted. Never before have internatiional sanctions had such dire consequences. Of course, I'm convinced that Hussein could've helped the Iraqis if he wanted to, but he didn't. Oil for Food was something the UN hoped would actually feed these Iraqis and still weaken Hussein, but I fear he was still able to funnel money from it. The corruption probe at the UN should be delayed no longer, and should begin in earnst.