NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

This can't be a good thing.

Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says.

The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars.

The Royal Navy said it was doing everything it could to secure the release of the sailors and marines who are based on HMS Cornwall.

They were said to be carrying out a routine patrol in Iraqi waters.

The Ministry of Defence said: "The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters.

It's highly unlikely that the UK had people in Iranian waters. So I see this as a flexing of muscles by the Iranians.

I can't wait for all the responses along these lines: "Well, they couldn't have been seized if they weren't in Iraq in the first place." :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

This can't be a good thing.



It's highly unlikely that the UK had people in Iranian waters. So I see this as a flexing of muscles by the Iranians.

Well...if they did trespass into Iranian waters, the Iranian government is well within its right to detain them, certainly.

Perhaps it may be a flexing of muscles, to quote you Eve...but I see no reason for Iran to do something like this at this point. They've pushed the envelope as it is and this seems to me to be far too risky.

I personally am willing to believe their story until evidence comes across otherwise. More than likely Iran will release them soon, or so we can hope anyway.

I personally am willing to believe their story until evidence comes across otherwise.

Yes, because the Iranian government's been so trustworthy...

Well...if they did trespass into Iranian waters, the Iranian government is well within its right to detain them, certainly.

Perhaps it may be a flexing of muscles, to quote you Eve...but I see no reason for Iran to do something like this at this point. They've pushed the envelope as it is and this seems to me to be far too risky.

I personally am willing to believe their story until evidence comes across otherwise. More than likely Iran will release them soon, or so we can hope anyway.

I believe the UK if the UK says they were in Iraqi waters. The UK Navy is too professional to fuck that up.

I think it is a retaliation for the US seizing Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq.

http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2007/03/iran-to-hit-back-at-us-kidnaps.html

I believe the UK if the UK says they were in Iraqi waters.


HAH!

And what my dear Eve, makes you so confident in the UK's honesty? I would trust them as much as I would any other government.

I believe the UK if the UK says they were in Iraqi waters. The UK Navy is too professional to fuck that up.

I think it is a retaliation for the US seizing Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq.

http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2007/03/iran-to-hit-back-at-us-kidnaps.html

Hmm...

Well...the way I see it, it's still a bit too risky. Tempers are flaring across the globe as it is thanks to Iran's overeager pursuit of nuclear fission power and possible nuclear weaponry, not to mention its inteference in Iraq...I still don't think they would continue to push this.

Everyone on both sides needs to calm down so the U.S. and the U.K. can sit down to talks with Iran and figure out how to stabilize this situation before things get any worse. The last thing we need is another damned war.

HAH!

And what my dear Eve, makes you so confident in the UK's honesty? I would trust them as much as I would any other government.

GPS.

Hmm...

Well...the way I see it, it's still a bit too risky. Tempers are flaring across the globe as it is thanks to Iran's overeager pursuit of nuclear fission power and possible nuclear weaponry, not to mention its inteference in Iraq...I still don't think they would continue to push this.


It's called a pettern of behaviour. The Iranian government's been pushing the envelope for quite some time now.

Hmm...

Well...the way I see it, it's still a bit too risky. Tempers are flaring across the globe as it is thanks to Iran's overeager pursuit of nuclear fission power and possible nuclear weaponry, not to mention its inteference in Iraq...I still don't think they would continue to push this.

Everyone on both sides needs to calm down so the U.S. and the U.K. can sit down to talks with Iran and figure out how to stabilize this situation before things get any worse. The last thing we need is another damned war.

From the Sunday Times:

Military analysts believe that Iranian threats of retaliation are credible. Tehran is notorious for settling scores. When the Israelis killed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah’s general secretary, in 1992 the Quds Force blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina in revenge.

Despite the Iranian threat to retaliate in Europe, Iraq is seen by some analysts as a more likely place in which to attempt abductions.

“In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American — and British — officers,” said a Jordanian intelligence source.

GPS.

Oh no. GPS will tell them where they are, doesn't prevent them from lying after getting caught with their pants down.

Having said this, its highly possibly the Iranians crossed an unseen/disputed border to get them, or the Brits crossed an unseen/disputed border by accident.

I'm just saying; purely because the UK says something, doesn't make it so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

This can't be a good thing.

It's highly unlikely that the UK had people in Iranian waters. So I see this as a flexing of muscles by the Iranians.

How would anyone know this? I say either assumption is as likely as the other

Oh no. GPS will tell them where they are, doesn't prevent them from lying after getting caught with their pants down.

Having said this, its highly possibly the Iranians crossed an unseen/disputed border to get them, or the Brits crossed an unseen/disputed border by accident.

I'm just saying; purely because the UK says something, doesn't make it so.

I believe the UK before I would believe the Iranians.

I believe the UK before I would believe the Iranians.

Your experience tells you that, my experience tells me otherwise.

Potato, potato.


(Wait, that doesn't work when you type it......)

I believe the UK before I would believe the Iranians.

Right, on the basis of what exactly...?

No government would tell the truth when they have something to hide... Especially democracies with their pesky media and freedom of press :D

Your experience tells you that, my experience tells me otherwise.


You've experienced some streak of honesty on the part of the Iranian government? Oh, please, do tell...

Right on the basis of...?

No government would tell the truth when they have something to hide... Especially democracies with their pesky media and freedam of press :D

I suppose you would have given Hitler credibility over the UK during WW II then.

Hitler in 1945: "We're winning the war! The Allies are crumbling in defeat!"

I believe the UK if the UK says they were in Iraqi waters. The UK Navy is too professional to fuck that up.

There is, however, some disagreement between Iran and most of the rest of the world about what exactly constitutes Iranian territorial waters. This dates back at least to the time of the Iran-Iraq war, and possibly before - it might date all the way back to the Ottoman Empire.

But yeah, this is not a good thing. It's not for nothing that I declared Ahmadinejad to be the craziest living national ruler after Turkmenbashi died.

No government would tell the truth when they have something to hide... Especially democracies with their pesky media and freedam of press :D

As opposed to those governments that can lie and get away with it, because journalists that question them wind up in prison?

If Iran can't prove that the UK boat was in Iranian waters does this constitute as an act of war?

If Iran can't prove that the UK boat was in Iranian waters does this constitute as an act of war?

You never know, do you?

If Iran can't prove that the UK boat was in Iranian waters does this constitute as an act of war?

If that is the case, then it would be the British government's prerogative to declare it such, yes.

I believe the UK before I would believe the Iranians.

Of course. Having to trust one or the other, any sane person would believe the UK before the Iranians.

The UK has too much to lose. Also-if the UK WERE operating covertly in Iranian territory, the Iranians would never have a clue.

As opposed to those governments that can lie and get away with it, because journalists that question them wind up in prison?

As I said either government can and will lie if it is politically expedient. :D

As I said either government can and will lie if it is politically expedient. :D

And which do you think is more able to get away with lying? Hmmm?

You never know, do you?

I'm curious as to what you would think of a war with Iran. Would it make sense? Would it be worth it given current circumstances, and all of those neat little questions?

I'm curious as to what you would think of a war with Iran. Would it make sense? Would it be worth it given current circumstances, and all of those neat little questions?

1. The US military is designed to decapitate a nation's leadership, destroy the major parts of its infrastructure, destroy targets of value, and decimate its military. In short, an invasion of Iran would result in the toppling of its government and the seizure of Iran.

2. We have no real ability to occupy a country.

3. We should only move on Iran if they either threaten to use, or actually use, nuclear weapons.

4. If they threaten their use against the other nations of the Persian Gulf, or Israel, or use them as leverage to get the Europeans to take back every Jew (which is their constant demand), then we should invade them. Otherwise, no.

5. If they use any nuclear weapons, we should pound the place with nuclear weapons.

So, is it a war of aggression if we are simply coming to the defense of our treaty-bound ally, who has been openly and flagrantly attacked, while attempting to patrol the seas to prevent smuggling?

Don't get me wrong, I still think the concept of a war with Iran is an absolutely terrible idea, but part of me would love to have it proven that Iran is that fucking idiotic as to bring a war by the US onto itself.

So, is it a war of aggression if we are simply coming to the defense of our treaty-bound ally, who has been openly and flagrantly attacked, while attempting to patrol the seas to prevent smuggling?

Don't get me wrong, I still think the concept of a war with Iran is an absolutely terrible idea, but part of me would love to have it proven that Iran is that fucking idiotic as to bring a war by the US onto itself.

Oh, you don't have to go to war over this event.

You can just sink half the Iranian Navy as a demonstration of what we won't put up with. They can hardly respond to that.

Hmm...

Well...the way I see it, it's still a bit too risky. Tempers are flaring across the globe as it is thanks to Iran's overeager pursuit of nuclear fission power and possible nuclear weaponry, not to mention its inteference in Iraq...I still don't think they would continue to push this.

Everyone on both sides needs to calm down so the U.S. and the U.K. can sit down to talks with Iran and figure out how to stabilize this situation before things get any worse. The last thing we need is another damned war.

I have two words for you.... Mahmoud Ahmadinejhad (excuse any misspells). And the Islamic Republic hasn't had a good record in the past (hold US embassy staffs for an extremely extended period of time during Carters presidency). I don't expect Iran to play it cautious, I think we will end up going to war w/Iran in the next presidency.

And which do you think is more able to get away with lying? Hmmm?

I think in this case both...

Iran is claiming covert operations I would guess (I would)....

If it were true, these operations would likely have left few traces... The media usually does not have much access to the information needed to report accurately. And even in the unlikely case they do have this information they may be asked not to disclose this information for national security reasons.

I am not saying this is the case; what I am saying that it is folly to trust our own governments more than the other govenrment in cases like these; when we have such scanty information and we know that both governments would be likely to lie if it was in their national (security) interest.

1. The US military is designed to decapitate a nation's leadership, destroy the major parts of its infrastructure, destroy targets of value, and decimate its military. In short, an invasion of Iran would result in the toppling of its government and the seizure of Iran.

2. We have no real ability to occupy a country.

3. We should only move on Iran if they either threaten to use, or actually use, nuclear weapons.

4. If they threaten their use against the other nations of the Persian Gulf, or Israel, or use them as leverage to get the Europeans to take back every Jew (which is their constant demand), then we should invade them. Otherwise, no.

5. If they use any nuclear weapons, we should pound the place with nuclear weapons.


1 - Not going to happen. With no secure supply lines to draw from (Iraq is not secure) and the huge size of Iran compared to Iraq the abilityof the US military to "decapitate the nation's leadership" is severely reduced.

2 - Thanks for admitting that. So stop trying with Iraq then.

3 - Does that mean someone else has the right to move against the USA for threatening to use nuclear weapons, or is this moral sword only one edged?

4 - Can't say I have ever heard them make that demand of Europe. A source would be nice please.

5 - Mutually assured destruction. Nice. I think it was reagan who described it as a suicide pact. Why not work on getting them not to press the button instead of threatening them if they do.

So, is it a war of aggression if we are simply coming to the defense of our treaty-bound ally, who has been openly and flagrantly attacked, while attempting to patrol the seas to prevent smuggling?

Don't get me wrong, I still think the concept of a war with Iran is an absolutely terrible idea, but part of me would love to have it proven that Iran is that fucking idiotic as to bring a war by the US onto itself.

I feel the same way. Its a rainy day out. I want something big to happen. :)

I have two words for you.... Mahmoud Ahmadinejhad (excuse any misspells). And the Islamic Republic hasn't had a good record in the past (hold US embassy staffs for an extremely extended period of time during Carters presidency). I don't expect Iran to play it cautious, I think we will end up going to war w/Iran in the next presidency.

Might as wll declare a draft and do it now!

Yes, because the Iranian government's been so trustworthy...

Only about as much as the current American government. And the British government Which is to say, not a bit for any of the three.

1. The US military is designed to decapitate a nation's leadership, destroy the major parts of its infrastructure, destroy targets of value, and decimate its military. In short, an invasion of Iran would result in the toppling of its government and the seizure of Iran.

2. We have no real ability to occupy a country.

3. We should only move on Iran if they either threaten to use, or actually use, nuclear weapons.

4. If they threaten their use against the other nations of the Persian Gulf, or Israel, or use them as leverage to get the Europeans to take back every Jew (which is their constant demand), then we should invade them. Otherwise, no.

5. If they use any nuclear weapons, we should pound the place with nuclear weapons.
No wonder Iraq was in such bad shape after we invaded. We really should have put a lot more effort into restoring the infrastructure.

I would say we'd definitely go to a higher alert status if they THREATEN to use nuclear weaponry, but something tells me they would not follow through with the threat. Remember, the Iranian people like us...though that mild liking of the U.S. is decreasing with every negative action we take towards Iran...and as such would be heavily against any such actions, and I don't see the clerics going nutso with nukes either.

If they use nuclear weaponry, I would say we would limit nuclear strikes to their military and launch sites only. The fewer people die in such a conflict the better because otherwise we might start a full-scale nuclear war and then we're all dead.

Oh, you don't have to go to war over this event.

You can just sink half the Iranian Navy as a demonstration of what we won't put up with. They can hardly respond to that.
I think that would be an unnecessary escalation, especially since this is at its worst a case of kidnapping rather than any real armed conflict. Heavy diplomatic talks are the way to go here, at least for the moment.

1. The US military is designed to decapitate a nation's leadership, destroy the major parts of its infrastructure, destroy targets of value, and decimate its military. In short, an invasion of Iran would result in the toppling of its government and the seizure of Iran.

2. We have no real ability to occupy a country.

3. We should only move on Iran if they either threaten to use, or actually use, nuclear weapons.

4. If they threaten their use against the other nations of the Persian Gulf, or Israel, or use them as leverage to get the Europeans to take back every Jew (which is their constant demand), then we should invade them. Otherwise, no.

5. If they use any nuclear weapons, we should pound the place with nuclear weapons.

Points 1 through 3 I have no quarrel with.

Point 4 is more of a problem. Yes, if the Iranians threaten other nations, their government needs to come down, but we can't do it alone. A US solo invasion is problematic, due to the fact that we're pretty well occupied (pun semi-intentional) with Iraq at the moment. But if we can get a broad international coalition, preferably including the Russians and the Chinese, to invade, then yes, it's doable. It will be expensive for all parties involved, but doable. Especially if the Chinese come; they have the numbers that would be necessary. I don't like the Chinese government, but in this situation we'd need them the way the Allies needed the Soviets in WWII. An Iranian nuclear rogue state could not be tolerated. And I think that the threat of Iran using nukes would be enough to turn the whole world against them.

Point 5? If there's any way to avoid using nukes ourselves, we should do so. There are too many other nations nearby who wouldn't appreciate the fallout. If we threatened to nuke Iran, any international coalition we had would fall apart in a big hurry.

1 - Not going to happen. With no secure supply lines to draw from (Iraq is not secure) and the huge size of Iran compared to Iraq the abilityof the US military to "decapitate the nation's leadership" is severely reduced.

2 - Thanks for admitting that. So stop trying with Iraq then.

3 - Does that mean someone else has the right to move against the USA for threatening to use nuclear weapons, or is this moral sword only one edged?

4 - Can't say I have ever heard them make that demand of Europe. A source would be nice please.

5 - Mutually assured destruction. Nice. I think it was reagan who described it as a suicide pact. Why not work on getting them not to press the button instead of threatening them if they do.

1. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Georgia,Armenia, Turkey, Israel,Qatar, we have plenty of supply posts in the Middle East, largely because Iran is the black sheep.

2. a given.

3. a given.

4. agreed

5. Contrary to public belief a nuclear explosion is not the end of the world at most we'd be looking at a 100,000-200,000 causulty list, not enough to bring the US down or Iran.

1 - Not going to happen. With no secure supply lines to draw from (Iraq is not secure) and the huge size of Iran compared to Iraq the abilityof the US military to "decapitate the nation's leadership" is severely reduced.


Decapitation is a 99 percent air operation. It can be done from Diego Garcia with no problems.

3 - Does that mean someone else has the right to move against the USA for threatening to use nuclear weapons, or is this moral sword only one edged?

If you don't have the ability to strike back with a nuclear strike against the US that would destroy the US, you don't get a choice.

4 - Can't say I have ever heard them make that demand of Europe. A source would be nice please.

You must be deliberately not ever reading anything Ahmadinejad has said about the Holocaust and Israel.

Here, to assist you in your ignorance and inability to Google:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5416

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 21 – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told European nations on Friday to open their doors to the Jews of Israel, so that Israel could be removed from the map of the Middle East.

Speaking to Syrian political personalities in Damascus after a meeting with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Ahmadinejad said that the Europeans should “prove their sincerity in advocating freedom” by allowing the Jews of Israel to resettle in Europe, Iran’s official news agency IRNA reported.

“Would you open the doors of your own countries to these immigrants in a way that they could travel to any part of Europe they choose?”, Ahmadinejad asked European nations.

The Iranian president complained that the European governments have not given any response to his proposal.

The hard-line president said that no Jew would remain in Israel if he or she had the chance to resettle in Europe.

5 - Mutually assured destruction. Nice. I think it was reagan who described it as a suicide pact. Why not work on getting them not to press the button instead of threatening them if they do.

It's not MAD if they only have a few nukes. While they could cause some pain, we could remove them from history.

It's not MAD if they only have a few nukes. While they could cause some pain, we could remove them from history.

Aye, MAD requires at least 40 guaranteed delivered nuclear weapons on both sides to take effect. Until that point, one side or the other will have strong first strike incentives.

Points 1 through 3 I have no quarrel with.

Point 4 is more of a problem. Yes, if the Iranians threaten other nations, their government needs to come down, but we can't do it alone. A US solo invasion is problematic, due to the fact that we're pretty well occupied (pun semi-intentional) with Iraq at the moment. But if we can get a broad international coalition, preferably including the Russians and the Chinese, to invade, then yes, it's doable. It will be expensive for all parties involved, but doable. Especially if the Chinese come; they have the numbers that would be necessary. I don't like the Chinese government, but in this situation we'd need them the way the Allies needed the Soviets in WWII. An Iranian nuclear rogue state could not be tolerated. And I think that the threat of Iran using nukes would be enough to turn the whole world against them.

Point 5? If there's any way to avoid using nukes ourselves, we should do so. There are too many other nations nearby who wouldn't appreciate the fallout. If we threatened to nuke Iran, any international coalition we had would fall apart in a big hurry.


Neither the Russians or the Chinese would ever get involved in a war against Iran. Both sell nuclear material as well as missile tech (China both directly and through N. Korea) to the Iranian government. And God don't get the Chinese involved they are a far greater threat to the West than is Iran.

More on Ahmadinejad wanting Jews to move to Europe (or Germany).

Some Arab commentary applauding his demand:

http://www.arabeuropean.org/article.php?ID=93

According to the Associated Press, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday “challenged Europe to take back the Jews who emigrated to Israel, adding that no Jews would remain in Israel if Europe were to open its doors.” Strangely, a thorough Google and LexisNexis search identified that, until now, no major American media outlet has reported this new round of anti-Semitic statements by the controversial Iranian leader who is also threatening to expand his country’s nuclear activities. The New York Times published an online AP story Friday evening at its website that included this information. However, it appears that this did not make their Saturday print editions.

The first time AP logged this report was via its Worldstream unit at 10:25PM GMT Friday. That calculates to 5:25PM Eastern Time. Yet, according to Google and LexisNexis, not one American media outlet is covering this story.

I guess it's not a story to the mainstream media, or to you Ollie, because whatever Ahmadinejad says is OK.

It's not MAD if they only have a few nukes. While they could cause some pain, we could remove them from history.

And that about sums up your attitude doesn't it? Instead of behaving like a responsible power, the current US administration goes along the lines of "do this and we'll fucking spank you". What happened to diplomacy, sanctions etc?

I suppose next you'll come out with the old line of "its the only language they understand":rolleyes:

Ahmadinejad repeats himself here;
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,418660,00.html

More on Ahmadinejad wanting Jews to move to Europe (or Germany).

Some Arab commentary applauding his demand:

http://www.arabeuropean.org/article.php?ID=93

According to the Associated Press, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday “challenged Europe to take back the Jews who emigrated to Israel, adding that no Jews would remain in Israel if Europe were to open its doors.” Strangely, a thorough Google and LexisNexis search identified that, until now, no major American media outlet has reported this new round of anti-Semitic statements by the controversial Iranian leader who is also threatening to expand his country’s nuclear activities. The New York Times published an online AP story Friday evening at its website that included this information. However, it appears that this did not make their Saturday print editions.

The first time AP logged this report was via its Worldstream unit at 10:25PM GMT Friday. That calculates to 5:25PM Eastern Time. Yet, according to Google and LexisNexis, not one American media outlet is covering this story.

I guess it's not a story to the mainstream media, or to you Ollie, because whatever Ahmadinejad says is OK.

Like you just said, it wasn't widely reported so how would I have heard it?

And that about sums up your attitude doesn't it? Instead of behaving like a responsible power, the current US administration goes along the lines of "do this and we'll fucking spank you". What happened to diplomacy, sanctions etc?

I suppose next you'll come out with the old line of "its the only language they understand":rolleyes:

You'll note in this thread that I consider that only an option if they use any nuclear weapons first.

Do you honestly believe that no one should respond to a nuclear attack? That it's OK if Iran nukes whomever they feel like?

Let's say the Iranians detonated one in a container ship in a US harbor. Should the US just say, "well, that's OK"?

I don't think so.

Like you just said, it wasn't widely reported so how would I have heard it?

I guess you don't have Internet service. Still waiting for the print edition?

I guess you don't have Internet service. Still waiting for the print edition?

I just don't go surfing for obscure news. And like you said, it was pretty obscure.

You'll note in this thread that I consider that only an option if they use any nuclear weapons first.

Do you honestly believe that no one should respond to a nuclear attack? That it's OK if Iran nukes whomever they feel like?

Let's say the Iranians detonated one in a container ship in a US harbor. Should the US just say, "well, that's OK"?

I don't think so.


That sounds kinda sorta familiar to a movie. Maybe you should quit watching so many movies :p

You'll note in this thread that I consider that only an option if they use any nuclear weapons first.

Do you honestly believe that no one should respond to a nuclear attack? That it's OK if Iran nukes whomever they feel like?

Let's say the Iranians detonated one in a container ship in a US harbor. Should the US just say, "well, that's OK"?

I don't think so.

Thats putting words in my mouth, show me where I said that.

What I said was that the US government should put more effort into getting Iran not to press the button, rather than keep pressing what will happen if they do.

Like you just said, it wasn't widely reported so how would I have heard it?

It was widely reported. You may have just missed it. This is the problem with alot of people they miss some critical parts and wonder what the hell is going on when the bombs start flying.

For this situation I would demand the release of the navy personnel within 24 hours. After that I would warn the Iranians that they would no longer have a naval flotilla in the gulf to operate. Yes, a threat of war.

Thats putting words in my mouth, show me where I said that.

What I said was that the US government should put more effort into getting Iran not to press the button, rather than keep pressing what will happen if they do.

Looks like we're doing diplomacy right now.

You're saying we're not?

What I said was that the US government should put more effort into getting Iran not to press the button, rather than keep pressing what will happen if they do.

That's actually a possibility, because the one person in Iran with the ability to overrule Ahmadinejad, the Ayatollah Ali Khameni, is reported to be far more of a realist. Not that he likes the US or the West, but he's at least able to see that a nuclear conflict is not really in the best interests of the Iranian people. Hopefully he's enough to keep Ahmadinejad from going off the deep end, or at least enough to get rid of him if he does.

Yes, appealing to the common sense of an Ayatollah may seem like an iffy proposition, but you work with what you have. At the moment, Khameni is part of the more reasonable wing of the Iranian government.

More on Ahmadinejad wanting Jews to move to Europe (or Germany).

Some Arab commentary applauding his demand:

http://www.arabeuropean.org/article.php?ID=93

According to the Associated Press, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday “challenged Europe to take back the Jews who emigrated to Israel, adding that no Jews would remain in Israel if Europe were to open its doors.” Strangely, a thorough Google and LexisNexis search identified that, until now, no major American media outlet has reported this new round of anti-Semitic statements by the controversial Iranian leader who is also threatening to expand his country’s nuclear activities. The New York Times published an online AP story Friday evening at its website that included this information. However, it appears that this did not make their Saturday print editions.

The first time AP logged this report was via its Worldstream unit at 10:25PM GMT Friday. That calculates to 5:25PM Eastern Time. Yet, according to Google and LexisNexis, not one American media outlet is covering this story.

I guess it's not a story to the mainstream media, or to you Ollie, because whatever Ahmadinejad says is OK.

Ahmadinejad is not considered truly representative of the Iranian government anymore and will probably be voted out of office in the next election. Think of him as Iran's George Bush or Great Britain's Tony Blair in that he represents only a portion of the populace and the rest want him out.

In fact, the UN, Europe, and even Russia are pressing the Iranians (along with the US) not to develop a nuclear capability.

Are you saying they aren't, and we aren't?

Maybe you should read more news, instead of just assuming that the US isn't doing anything at all.

Ahmadinejad is not considered truly representative of the Iranian government anymore and will probably be voted out of office in the next election. Think of him as Iran's George Bush or Great Britain's Tony Blair in that he represents only a portion of the populace and the rest want him out.

You don't hear any different out of the mullahs that run the place.

You don't hear any different out of the mullahs that run the place.

Maybe so, but Khameni at least would be reasonable enough to avoid nuclear conflict. And let's not forget the people...even if the government is not exactly fantastic, the people should not be forced to suffer, especially when those people actually like us for the most part unlike most of the Middle East.

Looks like we're doing diplomacy right now.

You're saying we're not?

Yes I am.

There have been extensive talks bet=ween Russia and Iran and the EU and Iran, directly and through the UN. I have yet to see any evidence of a major US diplomatic initiative to stop Iran using nuclear weapons.

Yes I am.

There have been extensive talks bet=ween Russia and Iran and the EU and Iran, directly and through the UN. I have yet to see any evidence of a major US diplomatic initiative to stop Iran using nuclear weapons.

Rice has been a long-term partner in the EU discussions with Iran.

The US also has been operating through the UN on this.

Would you rather we did something unilaterally? Or would you rather that we work through the UN and through other nations such as the Europeans?

Rice has been a long-term partner in the EU discussions with Iran.

A "partner"? So you admit that the USA, the self proclaimed policeman of the world, has not initiated their own diplomatic initiative, just piggy backed on the European one.

And thats my whole point. This US government seem to have thrown away the carrot and just waved the stick around.

Point 5? If there's any way to avoid using nukes ourselves, we should do so. There are too many other nations nearby who wouldn't appreciate the fallout. If we threatened to nuke Iran, any international coalition we had would fall apart in a big hurry.


I think nukes are an absolte last resort and only an effective detterent against an equal or near-equal power.

What-are we going to blast Iran back into the stone-age with nukes ?

No-we can isolate them and eliminate their ability to be a threat to us with conventional weapons in a short period of time.

Better yet, if the current diplomacy by all parties fails (and it has failed, despite the best efforts of the Europeans, US, and even Russia - the Iranians just aren't going to give up nuclear ambitions), then in the event of a nuclear detonation on US soil, or the soil of an ally, do you believe that we should just "push for more sanctions"?

Do you honestly believe that is an acceptable and appropriate response in that event?

You've experienced some streak of honesty on the part of the Iranian government? Oh, please, do tell...

I was referring to the UK government being honest. I trust them as much as I trust the Iranians.

A "partner"? So you admit that the USA, the self proclaimed policeman of the world, has not initiated their own diplomatic initiative, just piggy backed on the European one.

And thats my whole point. This US government seem to have thrown away the carrot and just waved the stick around.

We're working with others on this because the last time, we didn't do it that way, and look how much criticism we got.

Better to work multilaterally.

Are you saying then, that we should forego the UN? I just want to hear you say it.

I was referring to the UK government being honest. I trust them as much as I trust the Iranians.

I trust the Iranians to execute women who accused other men of raping her. I trust them to execute homosexuals.

Do you trust the UK to do that?

Better yet, if the current diplomacy by all parties fails (and it has failed, despite the best efforts of the Europeans, US, and even Russia - the Iranians just aren't going to give up nuclear ambitions), then in the event of a nuclear detonation on US soil, or the soil of an ally, do you believe that we should just "push for more sanctions"?

Do you honestly believe that is an acceptable and appropriate response in that event?

In the event of a nuclear detonation by Iran on the soil of one of their enemies, then yes, a quid-proquo nuclear response would be legitimate, certainly not "wiping them from history" as you propose. Nowhere have I said otherwise.

The fact that Iranians are hankering for nuclear weapons should have been seen coming a long time ago. Just how long did the "Big 5" nuclear powers think they would be the only ones? The proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world will only increase all the time, the US, Russia, UK and others maintain and renew their own nuclear stockpiles.

You don't hear any different out of the mullahs that run the place.

From the chatham house report 2006 (http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/pdf/research/mep/Iran0806.pdf)

Shows a different picture...

Despite the prominence of Ahmadinejad, the Iranian political system does not give complete political control to the presidency. Following in the footsteps of Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is clearly at the very top of the domestic power structure, but the actual exercising of power is less certain. In many ways, the Iranian regime reflects a constant jockeying for influence between different interest groups, personalities and institutions. Even though most core policy positions – such as the inadmissibility of foreign interference in Iran’s domestic affairs or foreign policy – are shared and constant, the articulation and shaping of the detail of policy often gives rise to intense rivalry.

There are nevertheless two main arguments regarding the actual dynamics of power in Iran, especially over the nuclear issue. The first is that Khamenei is ultimately in charge, with Ali Larijani, who succeeded Hassan Rohani in late 2005 at the head of the National Security Council, effectively playing the role of foreign minister. Ahmadinejad’s role is to manage domestic policy and maintain popular support for the nuclear issue through gestures and speeches. As the main negotiator on behalf of Iran in international circles, Larijani articulates the details of Iran’s position, but overall responses and initiatives emerge from and are the result of a collective effort, overseen by Khamenei. The weakness in this system is that Ahmadinejad still retains a wrecking capacity through his public pronouncements, but his own appointed Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has no real power and is merely a spokesman for officially agreed policy.

The second argument is that this picture has now been complicated by other elements feeding into the structure. The most prominent of these is the new Strategic Council for Foreign Relations which was established by Khamenei on 25 June 2006. The profile of the Council’s membership suggests that Khamenei has become increasingly unhappy with Ahmadinejad’s approach to foreign policy issues. To counterbalance this, the Supreme Leader has turned to political figures associated with the ‘reformist’ trend that enjoyed brief prominence under the Khatami presidency. Most notably, Kamal Kharrazi, the previous foreign minister, was appointed to head the Council, while another appointee is Kharrazi’s own predecessor as foreign minister, Ali Akbar Velayati. Kharrazi can nominate a further five members to the Council, suggesting that its reformist character is likely to be further strengthened in the future. The Council has been tasked with making strategy and thinking broadly about foreign policy, at a higher level than that of the day-to-day business of the Foreign Ministry. The very creation of this institution illustrates the deterioration of the relationship between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, through adding a new instrument of policy coordination to the system with which the president will have to contend. Ahmadinejad’s protégé, Foreign Minister Mottaki, also faces the constraint of having his two predecessors effectively overseeing his post. Even though the Council has still to prove itself, the move indicates that Khamenei is trying to wrest control over foreign policy away from the extreme positions towards which Ahmadinejad and his hardline supporters have been attempting to take it.

In the event of a nuclear detonation by Iran on the soil of one of their enemies, then yes, a quid-proquo nuclear response would be legitimate, certainly not "wiping them from history" as you propose. Nowhere have I said otherwise.

The fact that Iranians are hankering for nuclear weapons should have been seen coming a long time ago. Just how long did the "Big 5" nuclear powers think they would be the only ones? The proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world will only increase all the time, the US, Russia, UK and others maintain and renew their own nuclear stockpiles.

Ever heard of the NNPT? Ever wonder why the US played a big role in it? For just such a reason.

I guess you think that the US has never been involved in any diplomacy in history related to nuclear weapons, especially in the Middle East.

We've tried the carrot approach for decades.

I guess you can't see that it's not working.

From the chatham house report 2006

Shows a different picture...

Nowhere does that say anything about hatred of the Jews, or the negating of Ahmadinejad's policies on destroying Israel or developing nuclear capability.

We're working with others on this because the last time, we didn't do it that way, and look how much criticism we got.

Better to work multilaterally.

Are you saying then, that we should forego the UN? I just want to hear you say it.

So you admit that foregoing the UN in regards to Iraq was wrong then? I'd like to hear you say that.

What I believe the US should do is take a much strionger part in anti-nuclear talks than they currently are, which seems to consist of saying that they support the UN and the EU stance, and little else. The whole strategy seems to be along the lines of Europe waves the carrot and the US waves the stick.

I trust the Iranians to execute women who accused other men of raping her. I trust them to execute homosexuals.

Do you trust the UK to do that?

I trust the UK to actively help terrorists kill their own civilian citizens, knowingly arrest innocents on trumped up charges, torture and then knowingly falsely imprison innocents for decades.

So, yeah. Pardon me if I don't trust Westminster.

Ever heard of the NNPT? Ever wonder why the US played a big role in it? For just such a reason.

I guess you think that the US has never been involved in any diplomacy in history related to nuclear weapons, especially in the Middle East.

We've tried the carrot approach for decades.

I guess you can't see that it's not working.

You can't advocate nuclear non-proliferation whilst hoarding a great arsenal of nuclear weapons. That is the grossest form of hypocrisy.

I trust the UK to actively help terrorists kill their own civilian citizens, knowlingly arrest innocents on trumped up charges, torture and then knowlingly falsely imprison innocents for decades.

So, yeah. Pardon me if I don't trust Westminster.

QFT

This is Iran's attempt to prevent sanctions from coming down on them. The UN is considering more right now, and Iran is desperately trying to prevent them from occuring. I predict a hostage situation, where they demand the end of sanctions.

I say starve them out.

HMS Cornwall is type 22 frigate. They should had threatened to blow iranians out of water.

Nowhere does that say anything about hatred of the Jews, or the negating of Ahmadinejad's policies on destroying Israel or developing nuclear capability.

You should see my reply in the light of your following reaction to a post:

Ahmadinejad is not considered truly representative of the Iranian government anymore and will probably be voted out of office in the next election. Think of him as Iran's George Bush or Great Britain's Tony Blair in that he represents only a portion of the populace and the rest want him out.

You don't hear any different out of the mullahs that run the place.

My reply merely shows the realism of the Iranian leadership

If you which to discuss the beliefs of Ahmadinejad concerning Israel that is fine with me, but he does not have the power to attack Israel.

In the event of a nuclear detonation by Iran on the soil of one of their enemies, then yes, a quid-proquo nuclear response would be legitimate, certainly not "wiping them from history" as you propose. Nowhere have I said otherwise.




I dont agree. I dont think there is any threat great enough to the United States right now that would justify using nukes.

Can Iran get a nuke to us right now? Will we allow them to continue on a path to do so? I hope not. At this time, we could stop their programs with smart bombs,cruise missles and covert ops.

Would Iran even be deterred by something like Mutually Assured Destruction?

No.

Could one of our enemies uses a dirty bomb and destroy part of one of our cities? Yes. If it was a states sponsored act, we could swiftly and effectively isolate them,destroy their ability to communicate,turn off their power and destroy thier strategic command capabilities.

If terrorists seize a French or British nuke weapon and launch it against us-who would we nuke? France? Britain?

No.

The nuke option is off the table for the US in my opinion. Now,all the nukes are just a liabilty we need to maintain and guard.
Our enemies are cunning enough to use our own material against us. Like 9/11.
Like contributing toward this illusion we are a country divided.

This is Iran's attempt to prevent sanctions from coming down on them. The UN is considering more right now, and Iran is desperately trying to prevent them from occuring. I predict a hostage situation, where they demand the end of sanctions.

I say starve them out.

Well that's not going to work. They're just running the risk of having their navy sunk along with getting more sanctions. Nobody's going to cave in to their demands.

I trust the Iranians to execute women who accused other men of raping her. I trust them to execute homosexuals.

Do you trust the UK to do that?

I'd trust them to plant bombs in another nations capital and in towns around it. I'd trust them to carry out torture and assasination of poltical opponents. I'd also trust them to fuck over the Iranians in conunction with the yanks, the way they did in the 50's with operation Ajax.

I dont agree. I dont think there is any threat great enough to the United States right now that would justify using nukes.

Can Iran get a nuke to us right now? Will we allow them to continue on a path to do so? I hope not. At this time, we could stop their programs with smart bombs,cruise missles and covert ops.

Would Iran even be deterred by something like Mutually Assured Destruction?

No.

Could one of our enemies uses a dirty bomb and destroy part of one of our cities? Yes. If it was a states sponsored act, we could swiftly and effectively isolate them,destroy their ability to communicate,turn off their power and destroy thier strategic command capabilities.

If terrorists seize a French or British nuke weapon and launch it against us-who would we nuke? France? Britain?

No.

The nuke option is off the table for the US in my opinion. Now,all the nukes are just a liabilty we need to maintain and guard.
Our enemies are cunning enough to use our own material against us. Like 9/11.
Like contributing toward this illusion we are a country divided.

I would agree with you there. I was in fact referring to any hypothetical situation where Iran might have the capability to strike directly at US soil, and trying to expose EO for wanting to destroy an entire nation as a matter of revenge.

At this time, we could stop their programs with smart bombs,cruise missles and covert ops.


I have a little problem with this line of thinking.

The thing is, you do that....... then what?

What happens after you bomb the crap out of a country? You just sit down and go "Ok fellas, now thats out of the way - lets get back to talking. Where were we again? Bill, you were saying...."

It's a dangerous road to go down - you either bomb them and follow through the whole way to another "regime change", or you don't bomb them at all.

Well, I begin to doubt the UK's version of events when I remember that this is the same supposedly 'professional' military that has, amongst other recent events, managed to land a number of Marines in Spain when practising amphib landings in Gibraltar.

Not that I trust the Iranians either, but the UK is hardly immune to cock-ups.

This is Iran's attempt to prevent sanctions from coming down on them. The UN is considering more right now, and Iran is desperately trying to prevent them from occuring. I predict a hostage situation, where they demand the end of sanctions.

I say starve them out.

The people that will starve to death and waste away from disease will be the poor-They will be on your TV every night,showing how terrible we are for killing them with sanctions.

meanwhile,the ones making decisions will remain well-fed and cared for and appear as heros against their oppressors.

The ones in charge will not suffer-they will benefit and those suffering wil support them because they will only be aware of who is inflicting the suffering upon them through what they are allowed to see and hear. A generation will develop fear and hatred of the US.


No-the best thing to do is to make it clear what will not be tolerated and make a clear deadline to comply.

Then,target the main offenders-the ones really calling the shots,while mounting a rescue mission simultaneously.

Destroy all nuke capabilities while we are at it. We dont want to go back in ten years.

I would agree with you there. I was in fact referring to any hypothetical situation where Iran might have the capability to strike directly at US soil, and trying to expose EO for wanting to destroy an entire nation as a matter of revenge.

What do you call Mutually Assured Destruction? Revenge?

Or is the mere mention that you'll waste an entire nation "deterrence"?

Worked for the Cold War.

Are you saying they won't be deterred from using a nuke under the same threat?

A good start would be the revision of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. All the time the US and others have nuclear weapons, then their enemies will want them, that stands to reason. The idea that nuclear weapons "preserve peace" is obscene, its like saying you can stop someone from disagreeing with you all the time you have gun poimted at him.

1. The US military is designed to decapitate a nation's leadership, destroy the major parts of its infrastructure, destroy targets of value, and decimate its military. In short, an invasion of Iran would result in the toppling of its government and the seizure of Iran.
HA!
Have you ever looked into Iran's terrain or its air defense, not to mention it ability to shut down shipping in the gulf? Our losses, both military and economic would be far too massive for the American public.

What do you call Mutually Assured Destruction? Revenge?

Or is the mere mention that you'll waste an entire nation "deterrence"?

Worked for the Cold War.

Are you saying they won't be deterred from using a nuke under the same threat?

Barely. The Cold War was prevented from going hot by, guess what, Diplomacy!! Ever hear of SALT, the summit meetings, the hotlines? The US won the cold war by diplomacy and economics not through the use of MAD as a deterrent.

HA!
Have you ever done any research on Iran's terrain or its air defense? Our losses would be far too massive for the American public.

I don't know about that. Their air defense would have to cope with stealth aircraft. That's not all that easy.

What do you call Mutually Assured Destruction? Revenge?

Or is the mere mention that you'll waste an entire nation "deterrence"?

Worked for the Cold War.

Are you saying they won't be deterred from using a nuke under the same threat?

Words in my mouth again EO, show me where I said that.

What I am saying (I'll type slower for you) is that diplomacy rather than threats is surely the better, safer way to go forward.

Nowhere does that say anything about hatred of the Jews, or the negating of Ahmadinejad's policies on destroying Israel or developing nuclear capability.

Ahmadinejad seems to talk a lot about the dismantling rather than the destruction of Israel. Though this surely is neither a desired nor viable solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict, it is an understandable viewpoint from his position.

Looks like we're doing diplomacy right now.

You're saying we're not?

I don't know where you went to school DK, but diplomacy isn't screaming "We'll blow you to kingdom come if you misbehave!"

I'm pretty confident that Iran will release the captives, Ahmadinejad isn't feeling that suicidal right now.

I have a little problem with this line of thinking.

The thing is, you do that....... then what?

What happens after you bomb the crap out of a country? You just sit down and go "Ok fellas, now thats out of the way - lets get back to talking. Where were we again? Bill, you were saying...."

It's a dangerous road to go down - you either bomb them and follow through the whole way to another "regime change", or you don't bomb them at all.

Please understand-I do not in any way suggest we "bomb the crap out of a country".
My suggestion is that we ONLY target known,confirmed military installations, radar/communication sites, the places we already know they house and service their subs from, etc...

I dont think we have to teach the average man-like you and I-in Iran any lesson.
I also dont think talking and talking and talking with the current Iranian regime is doing anything aside from buying them time and giving them a stage to carry out their charades on. Charades that cause peple to doubt and second guess everything.

We dont need to kill the average Iranian citizen. We dont need to level his place of employment (unless its involved with projecting war outside their borders) we dont need to cut off his food supply or fresh water.

We need to eliminate the main offenders. Carefully watch who steps up. Who is next in line.
If they are friendly to us, we can offer assistance and aid. We can open up trading.
If not, we continue to monitor closely.

I have nothing against the average Iranian citizen. He is not a threat to me,my family or my way of life. I like to think,if asked, he feels the same way about me.

A good start would be the revision of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. All the time the US and others have nuclear weapons, then their enemies will want them, that stands to reason. The idea that nuclear weapons "preserve peace" is obscene, its like saying you can stop someone from disagreeing with you all the time you have gun poimted at him.

The problem is, as soon as you lower thegun,they are thinking of how to grab you by the throat.
As soon as you throw the gun into the ocean, you have to fight them hand to hand.

I say once you have the gun,keep at a safe distance and play nice.

And keep the gun in a very safe place.

HA!
Have you ever looked into Iran's terrain or its air defense, not to mention it ability to shut down shipping in the gulf? Our losses, both military and economic would be far too massive for the American public.

It would be like another video game for us. One big training mission,where we hone our tactics and skills.

What are they going to close shipping in the gulf with? Deisel subs? Ak-47s?
RPGs?

No-we can stomp an identifiable enemy force into oblivion. Our losses from accidents would be greater than any inflicted by enemy fire.

Its the ones we cannot identify until they detonate an IED we have trouble with.

I'm pretty confident that Iran will release the captives, Ahmadinejad isn't feeling that suicidal right now.

This would be a best-case scenario. I hope its the case.

The problem is, as soon as you lower thegun,they are thinking of how to grab you by the throat.
As soon as you throw the gun into the ocean, you have to fight them hand to hand.

I say once you have the gun,keep at a safe distance and play nice.

And keep the gun in a very safe place.

But by that rational what room do you have for complaint when your opponent also wants a gun.

[QUOTE=Carnivorous Lickers;12459923]Please understand-I do not in any way suggest we "bomb the crap out of a country".
My suggestion is that we ONLY target known,confirmed military installations, radar/communication sites, the places we already know they house and service their subs from, etc...

]

And where do you think they'd keep the hostages?

But by that rational what room do you have for complaint when your opponent also wants a gun.

Right, allow me to elaborate ;)

But by that rational, what room do you have for complaint when your roommate also wants a gun, after you have been nagging for months that you could take him out any time, and keep threatening the pizza courier every time your roommate calls out for a pizza, forcing him to eat leftovers.

But by that rational what room do you have for complaint when your opponent also wants a gun.

It doesnt have to be rational. Those who have the weapons,make the rules.

As long as I'm paying attention,my opponent cant get one. And as long as I wish to stay intact,I have to be vigilant he doesnt lull me into some false sense of security.

You dont think smiling and talking keeps people from being at each other's throats,do you?

You dont think we say"Sorry Iran-this is all a big mistake-go ahead with your nuke program-you have every right to-after all-we have them".
And then they play nice?

No- as soon as they have something funtioning on that end,they'll be wagging it in everyone's face. After they actually use it on Israel, of course. This will be nearly automatic.


No-life isnt fair. There shouldnt be a level playing field. We shouldnt relinquish any advantage or allow them to obtain one like this.

Right, allow me to elaborate ;)

But by that rational, what room do you have for complaint when your roommate also wants a gun, after you have been nagging for months that you could take him out any time, and keep threatening the pizza courier every time your roommate calls out for a pizza, forcing him to eat leftovers.
?

Sorry youv'e lost me

It doesnt have to be rational. Those who have the weapons,make the rules.

As long as I'm paying attention,my opponent cant get one. And as long as I wish to stay intact,I have to be vigilant he doesnt lull me into some false sense of security.

You dont think smiling and talking keeps people from being at each other's throats,do you?

You dont think we say"Sorry Iran-this is all a big mistake-go ahead with your nuke program-you have every right to-after all-we have them".
And then they play nice?

No- as soon as they have something funtioning on that end,they'll be wagging it in everyone's face. After they actually use it on Israel, of course. This will be nearly automatic.


No-life isnt fair. There shouldnt be a level playing field. We shouldnt relinquish any advantage or allow them to obtain one like this.

Unfortunately all the time this is the case situations like this will occur time and time again.

[QUOTE=Carnivorous Lickers;12459923]Please understand-I do not in any way suggest we "bomb the crap out of a country".
My suggestion is that we ONLY target known,confirmed military installations, radar/communication sites, the places we already know they house and service their subs from, etc...

]

And where do you think they'd keep the hostages?


No idea. this would serve as a lesson though-if given an inch,they'll take it and whatever else they can.

This isnt the 80s-I'm sure we know right where the hostages are. And there are hard,experienced men honing a plan now to get them out.

?

Sorry youv'e lost me

Never mind... it was a bad attempt at agreeing with you. :)

the reason for Iran to have nuclear weapons is because it feels threatened by the US.

Unfortunately all the time this is the case situations like this will occur time and time again.

On this small scale. Yes. Its very troubling and a pian to deal with,but it isnt changing your way of life or standard of living.

Give them any more and you better get used to rationing.

Never mind... it was a bad attempt at agreeing with you. :)

the reason for Iran to have nuclear weapons is because it feels threatened by the US.

My point exactly. Thankyou.

If the US did not have a vast nuclear arsenal then her enemies would not be so eager to have their own nuclear weapons.

My point exactly. Thankyou.

If the US did not have a vast nuclear arsenal then her enemies would not be so eager to have their own nuclear weapons.

Bullshit.

The reason they want nuclear weapons is because Israel has them.

And neighboring Gulf States now want them because they view Iran as an enemy and a threat, and want their own.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6484279.stm

This can't be a good thing.



It's highly unlikely that the UK had people in Iranian waters. So I see this as a flexing of muscles by the Iranians.

In the old days, that would be considered an act of war. Hopefully diplomacy can work to secure their release.

If the US did not have a vast nuclear arsenal then her enemies would not be so eager to have their own nuclear weapons.

Whoa there. Iran having nuclear weapons is a very, very bad idea. I'm against that.

They signed the NPT - they should stick to it. If not, I'm all for some form of reasonable action/reponse.

Also, their President is batshit insane - I'm increasingly worried that logic doesn't run his policy decisions. Him + nuclear weapons = uh...ohhh.

I pity the Iranian people more than anything else.

Bullshit.

The reason they want nuclear weapons is because Israel has them.

And neighboring Gulf States now want them because they view Iran as an enemy and a threat, and want their own.

And my point is proved. They want them because their enemy has them. And the others want them because THEIR enemy may have them. Are you seeing the pattern yet?

Remove the primary source of the weapons and no one else will want or need them.

In the old days, that would be considered an act of war. Hopefully diplomacy can work to secure their release.

These things have happend before...

The best way to deal with Iran is not to make public threats but attempt to get them back through diplomacy (threats can be made under the table, but better not publicly)
It is likely that the prisoners will be released, unharmed within a few days. If this is not the case proceed with an ultimatum, with all the consequences attached to it. In the meanwhile diplomacy continues. As a last resort use military action, but this should be unlikely and I hope it will never come to that.

Whoa there. Iran having nuclear weapons is a very, very bad idea. I'm against that.

They signed the NPT - they should stick to it. If not, I'm all for some form of reasonable action/reponse.

Also, their President is batshit insane - I'm increasingly worried that logic doesn't run his policy decisions. Him + nuclear weapons = uh...ohhh.

I pity the Iranian people more than anything else.

I'm certainly not sayiong they should have nuclear weapons. What I am saying is that it is highly hypocritical of other nations with nuclear weapons to decide who can and can't have them.

In the old days, that would be considered an act of war. Hopefully diplomacy can work to secure their release.In the old days, Gunboat diplomacy only worked on countries that were considerably weaker than the British empire.

I'm certainly not sayiong they should have nuclear weapons. What I am saying is that it is highly hypocritical of other nations with nuclear weapons to decide who can and can't have them.

Hypocritical, maybe. Practical? Certainly.

Whoa there. Iran having nuclear weapons is a very, very bad idea. I'm against that.

They signed the NPT - they should stick to it. If not, I'm all for some form of reasonable action/reponse.

Also, their President is batshit insane - I'm increasingly worried that logic doesn't run his policy decisions. Him + nuclear weapons = uh...ohhh.

I pity the Iranian people more than anything else.

Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad idea; it does not spell the end of the world however. Their president is a hardliner populist, bad enough, but he does not strike me as insane. Moreover the power is divided among various actors in Iran and the influence of Ahmadinejad is limited.

Iran having nuclear weapons is a bad idea; it does not spell the end of the world however. Their president is a hardliner populist, bad enough, but he does not strike me as insane. Moreover the power is divided among various actors in Iran and the influence of Ahmadinejad is limited.It certainly doesn't spell the end of the world, but it tips the balance of power in the region in favor of a fundamentalist regime, and that is hardly something to be taken lightly.

Whoa there. Iran having nuclear weapons is a very, very bad idea. I'm against that.

They signed the NPT - they should stick to it. If not, I'm all for some form of reasonable action/reponse.

Also, their President is batshit insane - I'm increasingly worried that logic doesn't run his policy decisions. Him + nuclear weapons = uh...ohhh.

I pity the Iranian people more than anything else.


I'm agreeing with you on each point on this one.

And yes-I fear the Iranian people will pay the price,wether there are sanctions or bombs. The ones foolishly squandering the people's well being will be well fed and cared for.

If Iran can't prove that the UK boat was in Iranian waters does this constitute as an act of war?

In reality, yes. An act of war not only against the Iraq but with Britain too. Hell this is how the Brits nearly got involved in the American Civil War.

I'm agreeing with you on each point on this one.

And yes-I fear the Iranian people will pay the price,wether there are sanctions or bombs. The ones foolishly squandering the people's well being will be well fed and cared for.

Unfortunately this is all too true

It certainly doesn't spell the end of the world, but it tips the balance of power in the region in favor of a fundamentalist regime, and that is hardly something to be taken lightly.

Nor should the acquisition of nuclear weapons of other countries be taken lightly, whether they are part of the NPT or not. However a military confrontation over these weapons is far more damaging to stability than these weapons themselves. We should take different measures.

Unfortunately this is all too true

So- cut out the cancer that their heads of state are to us.

Then,like I said earlier-hopefully the ones that step up to govern will be somehwat more moderate,tolerant.

That being the case-buy their oil. Build some universities and hospitals.

Humanitarian aid can go a long way to winning the hearts and minds.

I'd rather see billions spent on trying to boost their ability to make opporotunities for themselves,to fed their families and maintain dignity than having more of our Marines killed by improvised explosives by people who dont understand us.

An idealic view. But I try to be optimistic.

Bullshit.

The reason they want nuclear weapons is because Israel has them.

And neighboring Gulf States now want them because they view Iran as an enemy and a threat, and want their own.

And nothing to do with the coup sponsoring US Goverments 100,000 Plus Military and Air power next door and located in and around the region....?

And nothing to do with the coup sponsoring US Goverments 100,000 Plus Military and Air power next door and located in and around the region....?
I think we (UK) can't exactly claim any kind of high ground over that, either.

I was thinking, didn't something like this happen a while ago?

If Iran can't prove that the UK boat was in Iranian waters does this constitute as an act of war?Only if the UK considers it as such and acts accordingly, which is unlikely.

What seems to be the problem is that the incident occurred in waters that are considered Iraqi by the international community according to a treaty from 1975, which is disputed by Iran. So, according to the Iranians, the waters were Iranian, although to be safe, they forced the British to enter Iranian waters before they were taken on board.

Like hell Blair would accuse the Iranian government of any illegal conduct, or conduct a reaction, without the assent and instigation of Bush. Not, of course, that I remotely blame Iran for the position they adopt in regard to the West, given the ignorance and belligerence they encounter in certain quarters.

I was thinking, didn't something like this happen a while ago?

Yes, it happened in 2004 also.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3826179.stm

The men were held for three days and were sent back to the British Army unharmed.

I was thinking, didn't something like this happen a while ago?Well, a German citizen recently got released from prison. He'd accidentally sailed into Iranian waters while fishing, though, so the case is different in that regard.

Yes, it happened in 2004 also.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3826179.stm

The men were held for three days and were sent back to the British Army unharmed.That's the one I was thinking about. All for straying onto the wrong side of the river... bah.

But if we can get a broad international coalition, preferably including the Russians and the Chinese, to invade, then yes, it's doable.

LMFAO

You really think they'd invade their pet Iran?

I'd written what I felt was a good argument, I took so long NS loggeed me out.

The point as Brit prob, we shuld solve it, blair is a tool, iran is not help[ing itself provoking evry1 else, fuck Iran.

I think we (UK) can't exactly claim any kind of high ground over that, either.

No, but I think once proportional representation is brought into Britain, it will be far less likely to happen again.

No, but I think once proportional representation is brought into Britain, it will be far less likely to happen again.

PR- STV would confuse the bejesus out of them.

You really think they'd invade their pet Iran?

IIRC, Russia's starting to distance themselves from Iran because the collapsing Iranian economy is draining government funds and forcing them to halt payments to Russia for the unfinished reactor in Bushehr.

Besides, Russia wouldn't mind taking out a competitor in the energy sector; I have a feeling they're going to be switching sides in due time, and China's just going to bail when it's no longer safe to support Iran. Both of them really have nothing to gain from backing Iran anymore.

PR- STV would confuse the bejesus out of them.

Same result, hopefully.

It would be like another video game for us. One big training mission,where we hone our tactics and skills.
Men and women would die. On both sides.
What are they going to close shipping in the gulf with? Deisel subs? Ak-47s?
RPGs?
Iran is not a defeated shell of a country like Iraq or backwater hole in the ground like Afghanistan. It is an industrialized nation. I know it must be hard for you to wrap your mind around the concept that brown people can do more than build mud huts, but maybe you should take a look at Iran's stockpile of Sunburn Missiles.

Ahmadinejad is not considered truly representative of the Iranian government anymore and will probably be voted out of office in the next election. Think of him as Iran's George Bush or Great Britain's Tony Blair in that he represents only a portion of the populace and the rest want him out.


Yea Bush won the majority of portions of the populace... considering he won the popular election, the first time thats happened in the US since 1988...

I believe the UK if the UK says they were in Iraqi waters. The UK Navy is too professional to fuck that up.

I think it is a retaliation for the US seizing Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq.

http://intelligence-summit.blogspot.com/2007/03/iran-to-hit-back-at-us-kidnaps.html

not long ago British Marines were on a training mission in Gibraltar when a couple of Spanish police officers met them on the beach informed them they had come ashore in Spain and not Gibraltar, they were helpful and gave them directions to the "big rock" (Gibraltar) plainly visible a few km's down the beach...

http://static.flickr.com/48/143325391_ad3c666532.jpg

not long ago British Marines were on a training mission in Gibraltar when a couple of Spanish police officers met them on the beach informed them they had come ashore in Spain and not Gibraltar, they were helpful and gave them directions to the "big rock" (Gibraltar) plainly visible a few km's down the beach...

http://static.flickr.com/48/143325391_ad3c666532.jpg

ask anyone who lives near the northern irish border how 'lost' the british army can get.

I think the Israelis should take advantage of this moment of confusion, paint their military jets to look like the Royal Air Force...then strike Iran's nuclear targets.;)

Only the United States has the moral right to invade and conquer Iraq!

Only the United States has the moral right to invade and conquer Iraq!
What does this have to do with America?

What does this have to do with America?

Perhaps the fact that, had you not first mooted the notion of invasion, and then followed it, British forces wouldn't be there. Or, the astounding arrogance that compels you to disregard the justifiable, and long standing Iranian interest in Iraq in favour of an interest based upon an illegal war.

Iran is not a defeated shell of a country like Iraq or backwater hole in the ground like Afghanistan. It is an industrialized nation. I know it must be hard for you to wrap your mind around the concept that brown people can do more than build mud huts, but maybe you should take a look at Iran's stockpile of Sunburn Missiles.

1. It has not been confirmed that Iran has purchased the P-270.

2. Both fixed and mobile P-270 launchers would be high on the target list. Most likely, the Fixed launchers would be hit in the first wave of attacks, either by Cruise Missiles or stealth attack aircraft. The mobile launchers would probably be destroyed as presented. Of course, this assumes that the Iranian military has sucessfully mated a naval cruise missile to a mobile ground launcher.

3. With a range of 80-120 KM, the P-270, while posing a major threat to commercial shipping while operational in the Strait of Hormuz, would pose a negligible threat to American warships.

What does this have to do with America?

Only that it seems to be "liberation" when US soldiers kill and rape Iraqi women and children, while it seems to be an "act of war" when some Iranians float into waters ostensibly held by the nation the US has invaded and occupied.

It's just an interesting observation of how people use their preconceptions to justify whatever events that happen and ignore things like, consistency.

Iran is not a defeated shell of a country like Iraq or backwater hole in the ground like Afghanistan. It is an industrialized nation. I know it must be hard for you to wrap your mind around the concept that brown people can do more than build mud huts, but maybe you should take a look at Iran's stockpile of Sunburn Missiles.

What was '91 Iraq?

Islands, your ignoring things like the MIM-23 Hawk, various SA and sea cat AA missile systems, and in particular the HQ-7. This provides Iran, in particular if concentrated in likely target areas, with a substantial strategic defense.

Islands, your ignoring things like the MIM-23 Hawk, various SA and sea cat AA missile systems, and in particular the HQ-7. This provides Iran, in particular if concentrated in likely target areas, with a substantial strategic defense.

The Hawk is an American design that dates back to the days of the Shah. The Sea Cat has been in service since 1962, having been replaced in Royal Navy service after the Falkland War. The HQ-7 is a short range point defense missile, reverse engineered from the French Crotale. The vast majority of the Soviet/Russian built Surface-to-Air missiles are several generations behind contemporary missiles. So far, Russia has refused to export the modern S-300/SA-21 SAM system.

For the time, Iraq's defense network in the first Gulf War was far more advanced then Iran's is now.

Plus, in the first and second Gulf Wars, large scale Surface-to-Air missile networks have proven extremely vulnerable to both cruise missiles and stealth aircraft.

The Hawk is an American design that dates back to the days of the Shah. The Sea Cat has been in service since 1962, having been replaced in Royal Navy service after the Falkland War. The HQ-7 is a short range point defense missile, reverse engineered from the French Crotale. The vast majority of the Soviet/Russian built Surface-to-Air missiles are several generations behind contemporary missiles. So far, Russia has refused to export the modern S-300/SA-21 SAM system.

For the time, Iraq's defense network in the first Gulf War was far more advanced then Iran's is now.

Plus, in the first and second Gulf Wars, large scale Surface-to-Air missile networks have proven extremely vulnerable to both cruise missiles and stealth aircraft.

Your still ignoring the fact that the only pretext the US would ever use to initiative heavy repeat bombing against Iran would be their 3 nuclear associated sites, the Natanz enrichment plant in particular, which is build mostly underground in concrete and in such a way to resist bunker buster attacks, thus the need for heavy repeater bombing, it would therefore be nothing like how Israel took out the Iraqi plant.

And because Iran knows the US will only ever strike these 3 sites, allows them to concentrate STA missile sites, both stationary and mobile, and I highly doubt they would risk civilian deaths by trying to take out the missile defenses (2 of the sites are in built up civilian areas). Natanz would need multiple bombing repeat runs to penetrate and destroy the facility, that or many, many F-22's or the like, not to mention Mikoyan patrols they are probably running in the area. Coupled with intense radar scanning in this particular area, Iran can set the terms for such an engagement.

Your still ignoring the fact that the only pretext the US would ever use to initiative heavy repeat bombing against Iran would be their 3 nuclear associated sites, the Natanz enrichment plant in particular, which is build mostly underground in concrete and in such a way to resist bunker buster attacks, thus the need for heavy repeater bombing, it would therefore be nothing like how Israel took out the Iraqi plant.

And because Iran knows the US will only ever strike these 3 sites, allows them to concentrate STA missile sites, both stationary and mobile, and I highly doubt they would risk civilian deaths by trying to take out the missile defenses (2 of the sites are in built up civilian areas). Natanz would need multiple bombing repeat runs to penetrate and destroy the facility, that or many, many F-22's or the like, not to mention Mikoyan patrols they are probably running in the area. Coupled with intense radar scanning in this particular area, Iran can set the terms for such an engagement.


F-22 are purely Air Superiority fighters. They have very limited strike capabilities. If the US were to strike, B-2 bombers would most likely be the weapon of choice.

There would be no need to peel back the onion layers of the Anti-Aircraft defenses surrounding any target. Recall in the first Gulf War, where First Generation F-117 Stealth fighters completely bypassed extensive Iraqi defenses and directly struck Command and Control facilities. There would be no reason to engage defenses in this type of strike.

The United States has developed weapons specifically designed to destroy deeply buried and fortified facilities, such as the GBU-28 and GBU-37. In addition, thermobaric weapons would work very well against underground structures with a fairly wide entrance. I have not seen satellite imagery of Iranian nuclear facilities, so I do not know what weapon would be most effective.

As for Iranian fighters, Iran only has 35 modern MiG-29 Fighter aircraft. These must be spread all over the nation to defend vital military assets. This is something that you are ignoring. Iran will not put all it's eggs in one basket, so to speak. It will not leave vital military assets exposed to American attack to defend their nuclear facilities.

Which brings me to another point. Any American attack will have the element of surprise. The US can determine when and where to attack. Iran does not know where the Americans will attack. It also does not know how extensive the attack will be. It may be just the nuclear sites, it may be a massive strike on the Iranian military.

This type of attack is exactly what the United States Air Force is built for. The B-2 was specifically designed to penetrate extremely heavily defended airspace and destroy vital Command and Control facilities. In such a surgical strike, the United States has the advantage.

(god damned Jolt)

You continue to avoid the point that politically and realistically the US won't attack the entire Iranian military, they just won't. No one can get away with that kind of blatant aggression in the modern world. The only way they could justify any bombing would be on the nuclear facilities, to keep them from building what they believe are nuclear weapons, they simply can't do anything but that.

Iran is not stupid, they know this, and concentrating air defense in these sites would actually be quite easy, even against stealth bombers, because the area required to cover the site would be relatively small. I mean the US line has been that it is building nuclear weapons, so any attack would only be justified to destroy that particular threat. Hoe exactly would the US justify attacking the entire Iranian military exactly? They can't, therefore they won't do it.

Thing is here, the US is diplomatically predictable, so far from the 'element of surprise' you mentioned, Iran can push and flood the US with continued nuclear announcements and the like, continue to threaten the Zionist regime. Eventually the US will be forced to take action specifically against the plants, which would be defended.

You continue to avoid the point that politically and realistically the US won't attack the entire Iranian military, they just won't. No one can get away with that kind of blatant aggression in the modern world. The only way they could justify any bombing would be on the nuclear facilities, to keep them from building what they believe are nuclear weapons, they simply can't do anything but that.

Iran is not stupid, they know this, and concentrating air defense in these sites would actually be quite easy, even against stealth bombers, because the area required to cover the site would be relatively small. I mean the US line has been that it is building nuclear weapons, so any attack would only be justified to destroy that particular threat. Hoe exactly would the US justify attacking the entire Iranian military exactly? They can't, therefore they won't do it.

Thing is here, the US is diplomatically predictable, so far from the 'element of surprise' you mentioned, Iran can push and flood the US with continued nuclear announcements and the like, continue to threaten the Zionist regime. Eventually the US will be forced to take action specifically against the plants, which would be defended.

You are incorrect in assuming that the US would not have the element of surprise. The US could attack tomorrow, next week, next month, or never. Unlike Iraq I and II, there will be no warning. There will be no "disarm in 24 hours or be attacked". The US aircraft will have tactical surprise.

As for justification, the US could claim that Iran must be prevented from threatening shipping in the Strait of Hormuz with their long range anti-ship missiles. But, I am not a politician. I'm looking at this from the military viewpoint. I'm sure you could think of some justification.

But, Iran cannot gamble their entire military on the nuclear sites. Once the Iraq situation calms down in the next few years, Iran will be the dominant military power in the middle east with their conventional arms alone. They will not risk their future dominance over nuclear weapons. They will heavily defend their nuclear sites, but they will not compromise the security of the conventional military.

And, again, look at the First Gulf War. Consistently, F-117 fighters penetrated some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world and attacked key targets. Potential attacks against Iran will be very, very similar.

You are incorrect in assuming that the US would not have the element of surprise. The US could attack tomorrow, next week, next month, or never. Unlike Iraq I and II, there will be no warning. There will be no "disarm in 24 hours or be attacked". The US aircraft will have tactical surprise.

As for justification, the US could claim that Iran must be prevented from threatening shipping in the Strait of Hormuz with their long range anti-ship missiles. But, I am not a politician. I'm looking at this from the military viewpoint. I'm sure you could think of some justification.

But, Iran cannot gamble their entire military on the nuclear sites. Once the Iraq situation calms down in the next few years, Iran will be the dominant military power in the middle east with their conventional arms alone. They will not risk their future dominance over nuclear weapons. They will heavily defend their nuclear sites, but they will not compromise the security of the conventional military.

And, again, look at the First Gulf War. Consistently, F-117 fighters penetrated some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world and attacked key targets. Potential attacks against Iran will be very, very similar.

You don't realize just how disliked the US is worldwide these days, and that any credibility it had will wither away if it uses some ridiculous pretext to attack Iran as a whole, I doubt they would even get away with attacking the nuclear sites. I also continue to disagree with you in that I believe Iran would take the risk and purely defend their nuclear sites. I believe this because, unlike NK, Iran is damn close to building warheads, and once Iran has nukes they are invincible, no one would dare attack them. The US does not so dislike Iran because the danger of nuclear weapons, but because if they had them, they couldn't attack them with immunity, that is what the US fears.

You don't realize just how disliked the US is worldwide these days, and that any credibility it had will wither away if it uses some ridiculous pretext to attack Iran as a whole, I doubt they would even get away with attacking the nuclear sites. I also continue to disagree with you in that I believe Iran would take the risk and purely defend their nuclear sites. I believe this because, unlike NK, Iran is damn close to building warheads, and once Iran has nukes they are invincible, no one would dare attack me. The US does not so dislike Iran because the danger of nuclear weapons, but because if they had them, they couldn't attack them with immunity, that is what the US fears.

Iran will not risk even the remote possibility that the United States will attack their conventional forces. It will defend the rest of their military. It will not concentrate all of their forces in one area. That's just really stupid in a military sense.

As far as the politics goes, I will not get into that. I am a military man, with a military mind. The point is that the United States Air Force has the ability to target and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.

As far as the politics goes, I will not get into that. I am a military man, with a military mind. The point is that the United States Air Force has the ability to target and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.
So you're willfully ignorant of a reality you're perfectly capable of understanding? Admirable.

Politics is everything. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

So your willfully ignorant of a reality you're perfectly capable of understanding? Admirable.

Politics is everything. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

The question posed, in my mind, was if the United States had the ability to strike Iranian nuclear targets. That question has been answered.

So you're willfully ignorant of a reality you're perfectly capable of understanding? Admirable.

Politics is everything. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

I have to agree.

But TSI, while I appreciate your military analysis of this, to ignore the political implications and realities of a military situation and how that changes actions is naive.

I have to agree.

But TSI, while I appreciate your military analysis of this, to ignore the political implications and realities of a military situation and how that changes actions is naive.

You expressed doubt over weather the United States could strike Iranian targets. I answered that.

Weather the United States has the "will" (for lack of a better term) is different, and one that I cannot answer. I am simply not intelligent enough to analyze the situation.

I am simply not intelligent enough to analyze the situation.

Is that a self-deprecating sense of humor I sense?;)

Is that a self-deprecating sense of humor I sense?;)

No. I know what I do well and what I am lacking. I do well in military matters. I lack intellegence when it comes to politics. I am simply being truthful.

No. I know what I do well and what I am lacking. I do well in military matters. I lack intellegence when it comes to politics. I am simply being truthful.

Fair enough.

Yes, because the Iranian government's been so trustworthy...

They've been far more thrustworthy than all people that claim that they want to build nuclear weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if hundreds of theese articles come up in the near future just so Iran can be miscredited and so the US people will give it's support to a war against Iran.

You continue to avoid the point that politically and realistically the US won't attack the entire Iranian military, they just won't. No one can get away with that kind of blatant aggression in the modern world. The only way they could justify any bombing would be on the nuclear facilities, to keep them from building what they believe are nuclear weapons, they simply can't do anything but that.

And you based that on what? The world reaction to the Invasion of Iraq? You forgot that the United States can veto any resolution in the UNSC. The world was outraged over Iraq yes but has that stopped anything? No.

Iran is not stupid, they know this, and concentrating air defense in these sites would actually be quite easy, even against stealth bombers, because the area required to cover the site would be relatively small.

Iraq had extensive air defense network and stealth fighters penetrated that like a knife through butter. On top of that, we do not even have to engage the target directly at first. Drop a few cruise missiles ontop of the area and then send in the bombers. You really have no idea what the US military is capable of doing. We have so many ways of attacking a target on the ground via air assault, it is not even funny.

I mean the US line has been that it is building nuclear weapons, so any attack would only be justified to destroy that particular threat. Hoe exactly would the US justify attacking the entire Iranian military exactly? They can't, therefore they won't do it.

Think logicly or is that beyond your ability? When you attack another country, that country is going to respond. To prevent that response, you have to attack the nation's military directly. Understand now or do you need more logic?

Thing is here, the US is diplomatically predictable, so far from the 'element of surprise' you mentioned, Iran can push and flood the US with continued nuclear announcements and the like, continue to threaten the Zionist regime. Eventually the US will be forced to take action specifically against the plants, which would be defended.

Well right now, we are working diplomaticly with our allies. Iran so far is not cooperating so Iran is not cooperating with the EU, the UN, nor the US.

What i have heard from soldiers that have been in Iraq is that the Brits are very professional. They know what they are doing. And this is an elementary mistake. That i do not see them making. And, the US says the British were defenetley not in Irani waters.

But, this is the kind of thing wars can start over... so lets hope Iran gives them back, safe and sound.

What i have heard from soldiers that have been in Iraq is that the Brits are very professional. They know what they are doing. And this is an elementary mistake. That i do not see them making. And, the US says the British were defenetley not in Irani waters.

But, this is the kind of thing wars can start over... so lets hope Iran gives them back, safe and sound.
Our forces are equipped with guns that don't work when it's hot, cold, wet, dusty or humid. They don't have enough armour, and instead of tanks we use jeeps with metal plates bolted on: while our forces may be professional, the people running the show from high up are a long way from being perfect. What's to stop them from making mistakes like the rest of us do?

Hmm...

Well...the way I see it, it's still a bit too risky. Tempers are flaring across the globe as it is thanks to Iran's overeager pursuit of nuclear fission power and possible nuclear weaponry, not to mention its inteference in Iraq...I still don't think they would continue to push this.

Everyone on both sides needs to calm down so the U.S. and the U.K. can sit down to talks with Iran and figure out how to stabilize this situation before things get any worse. The last thing we need is another damned war.

The issue needs to be sorted between Iran and the U.K. Things willl only get messy if the U.S. and any other country becomes involved.

Our forces are equipped with guns that don't work when it's hot, cold, wet, dusty or humid. They don't have enough armour, and instead of tanks we use jeeps with metal plates bolted on: while our forces may be professional, the people running the show from high up are a long way from being perfect. What's to stop them from making mistakes like the rest of us do?

As far as i know this problem wasn't technology related, such as a compass or something like that malfunctioning. But that the british boats were in Irani water on purpose is what the Iranis seem to think is the case. And both our countries Navies spend day after day, week after week in this sea. I do not see them making such a stupid mistake like this that could lead to something serious.

The people that will starve to death and waste away from disease will be the poor-They will be on your TV every night,showing how terrible we are for killing them with sanctions.

meanwhile,the ones making decisions will remain well-fed and cared for and appear as heros against their oppressors.

The ones in charge will not suffer-they will benefit and those suffering wil support them because they will only be aware of who is inflicting the suffering upon them through what they are allowed to see and hear. A generation will develop fear and hatred of the US.


No-the best thing to do is to make it clear what will not be tolerated and make a clear deadline to comply.

Then,target the main offenders-the ones really calling the shots,while mounting a rescue mission simultaneously.

Destroy all nuke capabilities while we are at it. We dont want to go back in ten years.

I suppose, then, that your tactic for this situation is to raise your arms and hope really hard that Iran doesn't hurt you? If the choice is between a devastating war that no one wins and that kills many times more people than the Iraq war, and allowing a (relatively) few Iranians to starve, the choice should be obvious.

I wonder: When U.S.A and Russia finally reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons (to about 10% of what they are now) would they allow them to be used as fuel in a 'nuclear lightbulb' rocket?

Behead them already so we can finally go to war with Iran already!

I suppose, then, that your tactic for this situation is to raise your arms and hope really hard that Iran doesn't hurt you? If the choice is between a devastating war that no one wins and that kills many times more people than the Iraq war, and allowing a (relatively) few Iranians to starve, the choice should be obvious.

According to the current tack of government policy in the West, I unfortunately think it's going to end up going down the war route. :rolleyes:

According to the current tack of government policy in the West, I unfortunately think it's going to end up going down the war route. :rolleyes:

I don't think it will.

Behead them already so we can finally go to war with Iran already!

Bad taste.

Just wait till they invade Poland.

There will be no war between the UK and Iran. For starters our military is not big enough....and as for using nukes...not a snowballs chance in hell. Use of nukes is NOT an option.

It will be resolved via diplomacy...unless the Americans kick off.

I don't think it will.

I wish I had your optimism.

The current US regime has been looking for any 'acceptable' excuse for war in Iran. It wouldn't be big surprise to see this being used as a rationale for war, by the Bush camp.

I wish I had your optimism.

The current US regime has been looking for any 'acceptable' excuse for war in Iran. It wouldn't be big surprise to see this being used as a rationale for war, by the Bush camp.

He's only got a year left, I think he wants to leave with at least a semblance of his dignity.

I wish I had your optimism.

The current US regime has been looking for any 'acceptable' excuse for war in Iran. It wouldn't be big surprise to see this being used as a rationale for war, by the Bush camp.

Problem is that it was not our soldiers that were taken. They were British. If our soldiers were taken, I still do not think it'll lead to war. Diplomacy will be key in this and no war will develope.

Bad taste.

Just wait till they invade Poland.

I wouldn't hold my breath, they will just forget who they are going to attack.

Everyone forgets Poland...

He's only got a year left, I think he wants to leave with at least a semblance of his dignity.

Bush and his war were already unpopular before the last election.

I don't think Bush is going to get a third term out of it, but the way the US public accepted the "'you don't change horses in the middle of a stream" rhetoric, makes me think Bush can pick his successor, IF they can get their war in Iran.

Would Bush be especially worried about how his last year of term is remembered? Based on his actions in every other year of his term... I suspect not so much.

Problem is that it was not our soldiers that were taken. They were British. If our soldiers were taken, I still do not think it'll lead to war. Diplomacy will be key in this and no war will develope.

Evidence suggests that the original argument used about Iraq being involved in the conspiracy of terror behind 9/11 was pure fabrication.

Evidence suggests that the original argument used about Iraq oqning WMD's was pure fabrication.

The US does not currently have a good reputation for 'platforms for war'. If Bush thinks there might be enough outrage over British hostages... he'll use it.

I don't think Bush is going to get a third term out of it,

He can't get a third term :rolleyes:

but the way the US public accepted the "'you don't change horses in the middle of a stream" rhetoric, makes me think Bush can pick his successor, IF they can get their war in Iran.

Not the way things are done here. This isn't the early 1800s where we had only one party.

As far as i know this problem wasn't technology related, such as a compass or something like that malfunctioning. But that the british boats were in Irani water on purpose is what the Iranis seem to think is the case. And both our countries Navies spend day after day, week after week in this sea. I do not see them making such a stupid mistake like this that could lead to something serious.
These kind of mistakes can happen occasionally, and as I said before, the border is disputed and complicated. In any case, it's not going to lead to anything serious. In a few weeks' time we'll all be back to abortion, Israel/Palestine and the evils of capitalism/communism.

And it's not worth three threads, either.

Bush and his war were already unpopular before the last election.

I don't think Bush is going to get a third term out of it, but the way the US public accepted the "'you don't change horses in the middle of a stream" rhetoric, makes me think Bush can pick his successor, IF they can get their war in Iran.

Would Bush be especially worried about how his last year of term is remembered? Based on his actions in every other year of his term... I suspect not so much.

Err, the president of U.S.A can only have two terms maximum (or just over 1.5 terms if the first half term was becoming vice president to president).

Now Dick Cheney on the other hand could have however many he wants, so long as he is elected as the Vice each time...

Bush is now in the 'lame duck' time period. He can pretty much do whatever he wants in law, in grey law and a bit in the illegal side (handled by lower down people) so an attack on Iran is even more likely.

Too bad the real people in power will have a chance to get into power again (after a dem victory most likely).

Err, the president of U.S.A can only have two terms maximum (or just over 1.5 terms if the first half term was becoming vice president to president).

2.5 actually. A president can serve only 2 terms in office and no more than 10 years if he becomes president half way through the previous president's term :D

He can't get a third term :rolleyes:


I didn't say he could.

But, for someone who has made a point of pushing 'state of emergency' legislation through, who has made a point of vetoes, made a point of signing statements, and recently made a point about oversight, Bush is doing a pretty good impression of some of the historical political figures who were less than constrained by the current 'law-of-the-land'.

If he can get another war, especially if he can get another groundswell of support (which war is good for, and outrage is even better for)... he still might push through a 'third term' clause.


Not the way things are done here. This isn't the early 1800s where we had only one party.

It already worked once. The upsurge of anti-Bush protest was already 'there' before the last full election - but people chose to vote Republican anyway, because of things like that 'you don't change horses' rhetoric.

We've already seen the same kind of thing building again - the upsurge of the mantra about 'winning in Iraq' if we are given enough, time, money, troops, whatever.

And yet, by all objective measures, a 'win' in Iraq, is what was there before we started meddling.

Err, the president of U.S.A can only have two terms maximum (or just over 1.5 terms if the first half term was becoming vice president to president).


Of course. I didn't say otherwise.

However, a moderately realistic 'state of emergency' might change that.

2.5 actually. A president can serve only 2 terms in office and no more than 10 years if he becomes president half way through the previous president's term :D

Oooh, burned by a guy who knows his own country's political system.

I like my political system better, though it would be nice to have some kindof cap (either time or by making more major parties exist, forcing comprimise).

Of course. I didn't say otherwise.

However, a moderately realistic 'state of emergency' might change that.

Since there is no reason for a state of emergency, one will not be declared and we'll have elections as we always have.

Obviously we need to try and use diplomacy to secure the release of our troops. But from what I've read about it, this whole thing could have been avoided if the rules of engagement were less restrictive. I'm sure that our frigate could have destroyed those Iranian gunboats before they even got close to our troops. This whole thing demonstrates just how wide open our navy is, it wouldn't surprise me if some terrorists ended up going for a USS Cole-style bombing. Our leaders need to make sure everyone knows we won't be screwed with.

'I think it is a retaliation for the US seizing Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq.'
If it was a retaliation, why not capture some US soldiers?

'I think it is a retaliation for the US seizing Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq.'
If it was a retaliation, why not capture some US soldiers?

That's what the intel agents get for being in Iraq. :D

Since there is no reason for a state of emergency, one will not be declared and we'll have elections as we always have.

Why?

We no longer have the same protections under law (from the argument that this government can use 'emergency powers' to overcome Habeus Corpus, to the argument that we can no longer have 'protection' from detention in the first place, to the argument that 'due process' can be suspended in the interests of the greater good - like the overturn of 'due process' for wiretapping), and we (apparently) no longer have the system of checks and balances.

We are currently 'ruled' by a regime that has consistently used an the assumption of a 'state of emergency' to institute 'state of emergency'-type abridgements to fundamental Constitutional rights.

I'm glad your rosy perspective lets you believe that each abridgement is somehow isolated, and that no further abuses will take place. I have less confidence. (Indeed, we have just recently had the arguments about the 'power' of 'signing statements', and before that, the arguments about line-item vetoes. Now we are currently having arguments about if there is ANY oversight... it doesn't inspire confidence).

'I think it is a retaliation for the US seizing Iranian intelligence officers in Iraq.'
If it was a retaliation, why not capture some US soldiers?

They know that the US would have an immediate response. Not saying that the UK are wimps however you can see what the response is already. It is amazing that the brit's allowed them to cart off those soldiers without trying to get them back at the scene. I can't imagine what was going through the commanders head.

They know that the US would have an immediate response. Not saying that the UK are wimps however you can see what the response is already. It is amazing that the brit's allowed them to cart off those soldiers without trying to get them back at the scene. I can't imagine what was going through the commanders head.
I imagine a good reason not be going in trigger-happy into Iran.

Grave,

For once, just don't post vast conspiracies anymore. If legislation passes Congress, it passes Congress.

For a state of emergency to be declared, Martial Law would also be declared and it hasn't and it won't because there is no need to implement martial law. Elections are still going on as usual, and Congress is still in session and not halted. There is no state of emergency. A state of war, yes but a state of emergency, no.

So please learn the difference.

They know that the US would have an immediate response. Not saying that the UK are wimps however you can see what the response is already. It is amazing that the brit's allowed them to cart off those soldiers without trying to get them back at the scene. I can't imagine what was going through the commanders head.
I think a lot of it's down to overly restrictive rules of engagement, courtesy of the cowards who run this country. Their only concern is that things don't escalate, they couldn't give a shit if they end up hanging our troops out to dry. I doubt our navy commanders would have had any problem with sinking those gunboats.

Lions led by donkeys.

Well, I begin to doubt the UK's version of events when I remember that this is the same supposedly 'professional' military that has, amongst other recent events, managed to land a number of Marines in Spain when practising amphib landings in Gibraltar.

Not that I trust the Iranians either, but the UK is hardly immune to cock-ups.

Indeed. Hell, even the Swiss did it with Liechtenstein, at the beginning of the month. No one is perfect.

But, as you said, Iran hasn't really been in a position to be all that trustworthy. So it basically comes down to a his-word-versus-his-word thing. Which really gets nowhere.

I think a lot of it's down to overly restrictive rules of engagement, courtesy of the cowards who run this country. Their only concern is that things don't escalate, they couldn't give a shit if they end up hanging our troops out to dry. I doubt our navy commanders would have had any problem with sinking those gunboats.

Lions led by donkeys.
I doubt the government is that heavily involved in those kind of military decisions, and if it were the result of rules of engagement, it's not automatically the result of decisions by this government. Blair has many things to answer for, but not this, I think.

Grave,

For once, just don't post vast conspiracies anymore. If legislation passes Congress, it passes Congress.

For a state of emergency to be declared, Martial Law would also be declared and it hasn't and it won't because there is no need to implement martial law. Elections are still going on as usual, and Congress is still in session and not halted. There is no state of emergency. A state of war, yes but a state of emergency, no.

So please learn the difference.

Or, alternatively, you could have addressed the issues.

No, far easier to ignore what I said, pretend everything is business-as-usual, and attempt to dismiss everything as 'a conspiracy theory'?

What do you even mean by that?

Are you saying I've made it up? That there have been no abridgements on habeus corpus? On the requirements for warranting on wiretapping? On the right to not be detained?

Are you saying Bush hasn't made powerful use of signing statements and vetoes? Are you argeuing that the current regime hasn't argued in favour of itemised veto? Are you areguing that the current regime hasn't claimed a new level of non-accountability to the systems of checks and balances?

What i have heard from soldiers that have been in Iraq is that the Brits are very professional. They know what they are doing. And this is an elementary mistake. That i do not see them making. And, the US says the British were defenetley not in Irani waters.

But, this is the kind of thing wars can start over... so lets hope Iran gives them back, safe and sound.

I think a war would be quite exciting, actually. first Iraq, then Iran. Maybe Iran'll lob some missiles at Israel, get them involved. Syria will join up against Israel, the Saudi's will start getting antsy, Kuwait will know-tow to their American masters, and then the whole region goes up in flames.

It's about time for another World War anyways. :D

They know that the US would have an immediate response. Not saying that the UK are wimps however you can see what the response is already. It is amazing that the brit's allowed them to cart off those soldiers without trying to get them back at the scene. I can't imagine what was going through the commanders head.

If I was prime minister, they'd have twelve hours to hand them back or I'd turn tehran into a smoking crater.

(I'd get away with it too because I'd tell the chinese that they could have whatever is left over after I've finished, so everyone would be cool with it).

Does this whole sorry affair remind anybody else of the last time Iran captured some Americans? Iran didn't let them go too quickly then, so why would they now? I mean, Iran held those Americans for 600-some-odd days; I don't think they'll be too quick to release these new prisoners too quickly, either.

maybe they just feel like having another hostage crisis. it worked out pretty well for them last time.

I also highly doubt that this would lead to any world war between islamic and the western countries. as much as they may hate the west, and as many harbor fundamentalist groups, without the west, there would be no one to buy their oil, and then where would they be?

maybe they just feel like having another hostage crisis. it worked out pretty well for them last time.

I also highly doubt that this would lead to any world war between islamic and the western countries. as much as they may hate the west, and as many harbor fundamentalist groups, without the west, there would be no one to buy their oil, and then where would they be?

Well, there's always China. :p

If I was prime minister, they'd have twelve hours to hand them back or I'd turn tehran into a smoking crater.

(I'd get away with it too because I'd tell the chinese that they could have whatever is left over after I've finished, so everyone would be cool with it).
But you'd have five dead sailors.

But you'd have five dead sailors.

A lot more than that.

A lot more than that.
Well, the thought of lots of dead Iranians didn't put many people off.

Well, an Iraqi general claims that the area the British gunboat was in isn't controlled by Iraq. However, The UK based Arabic language newspaper Asharq Alawsat, says that Qods was planning this since March 18th, although the source they cited is anonymous.

But you'd have five dead sailors.

It would be the last time they would do it though.

Iran isn't the best observer of freedom of the seas.

During the 1980s, they had armed speedboats that went after neutral flagged merchantmen. They also mined international waters on numerous occasions.

It was such actions that led to the US Navy's decision to totally kick ass in Operation Preying Mantis, the largest naval surface engagement for the US Navy since WWII.

Iran isn't the best observer of freedom of the seas.

Or any other kind of freedom, for that matter.

More than likely Iran will release them soon, or so we can hope anyway.

hmm. Remeber the Iranian Hostage Crisis?

I still say that the UK should nuke Tehran.

Which is the most anti-nuclear weapon nation on earth? Japan!

Which is the only nation to ever be nuked? Japan!

So it would put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Q.E.D.

How would anyone know this? I say either assumption is as likely as the other

Simple fact. Iran and Iraq have fought over that waterway for 80 years. It was one of the causes of the Iran-Iraq war. British ship was in either Iraqi or International waters, and potential smugglers know to skirt the line incase they spot potential busts like the British or US Navy, cross into Iranian waters, and let the countries dispute it all. Coalition forces ships don't just cross into Iranian waters looking for trouble, they know where to be, and GPS, as was pointed out earlier, keeps them well within the proper boundaries.

I still say that the UK should nuke Tehran.

Which is the most anti-nuclear weapon nation on earth? Japan!

Which is the only nation to ever be nuked? Japan!

So it would put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Q.E.D.

Excellent logic.

Although - perhaps you haven't thought it through to it's logical conclusion.

If we 'nuke' Iran because they pose a nuclear threat, are they the biggest nuclear threat? No - there is still only one nation that has used nuclear devices in anger.

By your logic, long before we consider bombing Iran... you'd have us bomb the US.

Oh and the UK can easily prove they weren't in Iranian waters.

If the RN has a system similar to the US Navy's ECDIS, they would have a record of the ship's positions on the GPS device.

If the smaller vessel didn't have one, then the HMS Cornwall would have one. From that, they could look at RADAR records and determine from those a good fix on the position of the sailors when they were captured.

Excellent logic.

Although - perhaps you haven't thought it through to it's logical conclusion.

If we 'nuke' Iran because they pose a nuclear threat, are they the biggest nuclear threat? No - there is still only one nation that has used nuclear devices in anger.

By your logic, long before we consider bombing Iran... you'd have us bomb the US.

Bah, the US is not going to use Nukes on the UK. If they did, the french would nuke them. (I'd like to think that the UK would nuke the US back, but the successive quisling governments since wilson have made sure the 'independent' nuclear deterrent is pretty much 'dependant'. I believe, as Nye Bevin said, "We've got to have them, and they have to have the fucking Union Jack on them". But I digress.)

Anyway, this US bashing gets us nowhere. The US is not holding UK sailors hostage. Nor is it completely batshit insane. (Mostly).

Oh, you don't have to go to war over this event.

You can just sink half the Iranian Navy as a demonstration of what we won't put up with. They can hardly respond to that.

We've done that before with Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Preying_Mantis

While the US had overwhelming force, only one aircraft from a carrier actually released weapons and that was the A-6 Intruder that sent the bomb down the stack of the Sabalan. Aircraft assisted in attacking the Sahand, but surface vessels did most of the work. Other than that, the Enterprise and her air wing took a back seat to the power of a an SAG.

Bah, the US is not going to use Nukes on the UK. If they did, the french would nuke them. (I'd like to think that the UK would nuke the US back, but the successive quisling governments since wilson have made sure the 'independent' nuclear deterrent is pretty much 'dependant'. I believe, as Nye Bevin said, "We've got to have them, and they have to have the fucking Union Jack on them". But I digress.)

Anyway, this US bashing gets us nowhere. The US is not holding UK sailors hostage. Nor is it completely batshit insane. (Mostly).

My point was, in reply to your post - if we are going to nuke people for owning nuclear weapons, with a history of aggression, the US has more 'nukes', has been involved in more wars lately, and is still the only nation ever proven to be willing to actually use nuclear weapons.

My point was, in reply to your post - if we are going to nuke people for owning nuclear weapons, with a history of aggression, the US has more 'nukes', has been involved in more wars lately, and is still the only nation ever proven to be willing to actually use nuclear weapons.

I never said we should nuke people for owning them. Only for trying to develop them.

There is no doubt that Japan was trying to develop nuclear weapons, and a good nuking cured them of that nasty habit.

On the other hand, the US already has them, so there is no historical comparision.

I never said we should nuke people for owning them. Only for trying to develop them.

There is no doubt that Japan was trying to develop nuclear weapons, and a good nuking cured them of that nasty habit.

On the other hand, the US already has them, so there is no historical comparision.

The US has them because... they fell off the Christmas Tree?

Or is there some bizarre loophole of logic here that says it is bad to want nuclear weapons, but everyone else will stfunoob if you can get them?

The US has them because... they fell off the Christmas Tree?

Or is there some bizarre loophole of logic here that says it is bad to want nuclear weapons, but everyone else will stfunoob if you can get them?

The US has them because it got them without being nuked. (And the tube alloys group helped them).

And not everyone else will stfunoob you if you can get them. I don't see that we are nuking Spain for example (though they deserve it, the donkey torturing bastards).

But if you are too crap to get them easily, and want to have them, then clearly history shows that you deserve a good nuking. To stop you from wanting them. It's a historical fact.

I realize that you hate the US. So, I for one, cannot wait for our new chinese overlords.

The US has them because it got them without being nuked. (And the tube alloys group helped them).

And not everyone else will stfunoob you if you can get them. I don't see that we are nuking Spain for example (though they deserve it, the donkey torturing bastards).

But if you are too crap to get them easily, and want to have them, then clearly history shows that you deserve a good nuking. To stop you from wanting them. It's a historical fact.

I realize that you hate the US. So, I for one, cannot wait for our new chinese overlords.

I wonder if telling another person what you 'know' about them (regardless of irrelevences like, being based in fact, any evidence, or that pesky truth thing) might be considered a flame-y or flamebait-y sin?

Based on some of your previous material, I have to say I'd expected better.

If your goal was to 'win' something, well done - I choose not to engage you any further on the matter. If you choose to apologise, and we can continue the matter like adults, I might entertain the notion further... otherwise, congratulations.

I wonder if telling another person what you 'know' about them (regardless of irrelevences like, being based in fact, any evidence, or that pesky truth thing) might be considered a flame-y or flamebait-y sin?

Based on some of your previous material, I have to say I'd expected better.

If your goal was to 'win' something, well done - I choose not to engage you any further on the matter. If you choose to apologise, and we can continue the matter like adults, I might entertain the notion further... otherwise, congratulations.

Yah, the last comment could be considered over the line I suppose. I was being flippant - I thought it was obvious, nevertheless Je m'excuse.

Frankly, however, I don't like the Iranian government, and I don't think they should have their hands on nuclear weapons.

Yah, the last comment could be considered over the line I suppose. I was being flippant - I thought it was obvious, nevertheless Je m'excuse.

Frankly, however, I don't like the Iranian government, and I don't think they should have their hands on nuclear weapons.

Well, alright.

I'm no big fan of the Iranian government either... but I don't think we should be glassing people because we don't like them. Not even because we think they are a threat. Hell, I consider our current president to be one of the most dangerous men on this planet - given his claims to religious piety, his apparent lack of scruples, and his access to shitloads of weaponry. But, I'm not suggesting anyone whack him.

Atop all else, I dislike the precedent that we have set in Iraq, and look set to repeat with Iran... we are making it okay to blow shit up, just because we have ideological differences. I don't like this - because a lot of people have ideological differences with some portions of the US population (mainly, I suspect, those who spend a lot of time in Washington)... and I'm not a big fan of poetic justice, when those close to me are in the firing line.

Well, alright.

I'm no big fan of the Iranian government either... but I don't think we should be glassing people because we don't like them. Not even because we think they are a threat. Hell, I consider our current president to be one of the most dangerous men on this planet - given his claims to religious piety, his apparent lack of scruples, and his access to shitloads of weaponry. But, I'm not suggesting anyone whack him.

Atop all else, I dislike the precedent that we have set in Iraq, and look set to repeat with Iran... we are making it okay to blow shit up, just because we have ideological differences. I don't like this - because a lot of people have ideological differences with some portions of the US population (mainly, I suspect, those who spend a lot of time in Washington)... and I'm not a big fan of poetic justice, when those close to me are in the firing line.

Here's the thing. I don't really think that the UK should actually nuke Tehran. I am, however deeply concerned about their attempts to obtain nuclear weapons.

And my concern is not based upon idealogical differences, but rather that I believe that their government is not stable. When the cold war ended most people cheered, I was concerned because a massively armed nuclear state had proved itself to be unstable and therefore had questions about who all those missiles would eventually go to. (And I don't think that anyone can seriously deny that the collapse of the USSR has not led to the illegal proliferation of nuclear technology and the exportation of nuclear capability, even though it is not nearly as bad as it could have been).

While I am not going to tout GWB as a great leader, at least the US is stable enough that the safeguards in place will probably prevent an act of nuclear madness. Similarly the UK ( and frankly I hate Blair far more than Bush).

I don't see the same stability in Iran. (Or pakistan for that matter). Which is why they should not have nuclear tipped missiles. It's not that the people in power today are so bad that they shouldn't, but more a question of who the hell will have their finger on the button tomorrow.

Now, if that is not a sensible concern and distinction, I don't know what is.

Does this whole sorry affair remind anybody else of the last time Iran captured some Americans? Iran didn't let them go too quickly then, so why would they now? I mean, Iran held those Americans for 600-some-odd days; I don't think they'll be too quick to release these new prisoners too quickly, either.


Or..... not.

Unlike two years ago when this EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED to British Navy personnel in preeeety much the same area.

They were released unharmed after a few short days. The whole of history doesn't revolve around US connected events.

Iran isn't the best observer of freedom of the seas.

During the 1980s, they had armed speedboats that went after neutral flagged merchantmen. They also mined international waters on numerous occasions.


Pffft. Brits did that all the time in the past.

Oh and the UK can easily prove they weren't in Iranian waters.

If the RN has a system similar to the US Navy's ECDIS, they would have a record of the ship's positions on the GPS device.

If the smaller vessel didn't have one, then the HMS Cornwall would have one. From that, they could look at RADAR records and determine from those a good fix on the position of the sailors when they were captured.

All well and good. Except for the fact that the border for the waters are disputed. The Iranians know this. The Brits know this. Even the Iraqis know this.

The Brits 'could' claim that "Look, our GPS says we were in the right place".
The Iranians would then say "Yeah, expect we dispute the claim to those waters. And you knew that. And you still put your troops out there. To us, you're encroaching in our territory. What would you do in our position?"

Pffft. Brits did that all the time in the past.



All well and good. Except for the fact that the border for the waters are disputed. The Iranians know this. The Brits know this. Even the Iraqis know this.

The Brits 'could' claim that "Look, our GPS says we were in the right place".
The Iranians would then say "Yeah, expect we dispute the claim to those waters. And you knew that. And you still put your troops out there. To us, you're encroaching in our territory. What would you do in our position?"

The answer to that question is: Detain your troops and send them home. Point made.

NOT detain your troops, make a big noise about it, and threaten to put them on trial, pushing both countries to the brink of war. That's just stupid.

I suppose, then, that your tactic for this situation is to raise your arms and hope really hard that Iran doesn't hurt you? If the choice is between a devastating war that no one wins and that kills many times more people than the Iraq war, and allowing a (relatively) few Iranians to starve, the choice should be obvious.

Absolutely not. Read any of my other posts- I would give Iran a hard,clear deadline to comply with our demands.
Then target and eliminate individuals in power,while decimating radar,communications,any significant military targets-storage,production, and also-any labs or facilities where we know they have their precious nuke research/development going on.

I would want to see the ones that made the poor decisions to pay and suffer loss-NOT the average guy thats just trying to make a living and provide for his family.

Absolutely not. Read any of my other posts- I would give Iran a hard,clear deadline to comply with our demands.
Then target and eliminate individuals in power,while decimating radar,communications,any significant military targets-storage,production, and also-any labs or facilities where we know they have their precious nuke research/development going on.

I would want to see the ones that made the poor decisions to pay and suffer loss-NOT the average guy thats just trying to make a living and provide for his family.

When stuff like this happens I think to myself .... What would the KGB do...

Absolutely not. Read any of my other posts- I would give Iran a hard,clear deadline to comply with our demands.
Then target and eliminate individuals in power,while decimating radar,communications,any significant military targets-storage,production, and also-any labs or facilities where we know they have their precious nuke research/development going on.

I would want to see the ones that made the poor decisions to pay and suffer loss-NOT the average guy thats just trying to make a living and provide for his family.

The main problem with a conflict with Iran is that while they don't have the ability to stop a US decimation of high value targets, they have the ability to strike at high value targets in the Gulf.

Tankers, offshore platforms, and the special offshore loading facilities for supertankers.

Things that can't be replaced quickly enough to stave off an oil panic.

Lash out at Dhahran, the facilities at Kuwait, Bahrain, and Dubai, and it's more than tit for tat damage.

When stuff like this happens I think to myself .... What would the KGB do...

probably something elaborately contrived and brutally effective-if it worked according to plans.

probably something elaborately contrived and brutally effective-if it worked according to plans.

The problem being that the Iranians are probably not above doing the same thing to their current hostages.

The main problem with a conflict with Iran is that while they don't have the ability to stop a US decimation of high value targets, they have the ability to strike at high value targets in the Gulf.

Tankers, offshore platforms, and the special offshore loading facilities for supertankers.

Things that can't be replaced quickly enough to stave off an oil panic.

Lash out at Dhahran, the facilities at Kuwait, Bahrain, and Dubai, and it's more than tit for tat damage.

That is a very delicate infrastructure, easily upset.

I like to think that all parties that depend on this system could effectively defend and secure it. But-its more likely they wont agree and will be jabbering like magpies while sabotage is carried out under their noses.

That is a very delicate infrastructure, easily upset.

I like to think that all parties that depend on this system could effectively defend and secure it. But-its more likely they wont agree and will be jabbering like magpies while sabotage is carried out under their noses.

I'm not talking about sabotage.

Iran has plenty of Sunburn missiles that would wreak havoc.

The problem being that the Iranians are probably not above doing the same thing to their current hostages.

I thought Rubiconic Crossings meant "What would the KGB do if it were Soviet sailors that were hijacked?"

I misunderstood.

The Iranians are capable of being careful-They may very likely be keeping the British hostages safe and well cared for,realizing their value. All the while,watching the reactions being provoked.

They can be reckless,but I dont underestimate them as being foolish.

I'm not talking about sabotage.

Iran has plenty of Sunburn missiles that would wreak havoc.

I know-I used "sabotage" as a blanket term for any destructive action taken against these targets.

I thought Rubiconic Crossings meant "What would the KGB do if it were Soviet sailors that were hijacked?"

I misunderstood.

The Iranians are capable of being careful-They may very likely be keeping the British hostages safe and well cared for,realizing their value. All the while,watching the reactions being provoked.

They can be reckless,but I dont underestimate them as being foolish.

If we did to our Iranian captives (their intelligence agents that were captured well inside Iraq) what the KGB would do, I'm sure the Iranians would skin the UK people alive.

probably something elaborately contrived and brutally effective-if it worked according to plans.

Bingo. Like what they did to that Egyptian group that kidnapped some Sovs in Lebanon back in the 80's. They found out who the sponsors were, took the father of the leader and well...lets say turned him into a message.

The KGB soon found the location of the hostages. With an indelible message...don't fuck with us.

The problem being that the Iranians are probably not above doing the same thing to their current hostages.

At the moment the Brits are too valuable.

That is a very delicate infrastructure, easily upset.

I like to think that all parties that depend on this system could effectively defend and secure it. But-its more likely they wont agree and will be jabbering like magpies while sabotage is carried out under their noses.

Yes. However infrastructure does not get scared.

I'm not talking about sabotage.

Iran has plenty of Sunburn missiles that would wreak havoc.

Yes. Hence a military intervention would not be a good idea. Not over 15 people.

I thought Rubiconic Crossings meant "What would the KGB do if it were Soviet sailors that were hijacked?"

I misunderstood.

The Iranians are capable of being careful-They may very likely be keeping the British hostages safe and well cared for,realizing their value. All the while,watching the reactions being provoked.

They can be reckless,but I dont underestimate them as being foolish.

No...You understood ;) And I agree with the second part of your post as well. At the moment the Brits are too valuable. The Iranians will not execute them. What they will most likely do is have a show trial...hold them for a bit longer and then use them as a bargaining chip.

I know-I used "sabotage" as a blanket term for any destructive action taken against these targets.

Once again...they don't get scared. Now if 'we' target and make sure they know they are targets, every Iranian gov official or known agents with a warning message...they might well have second thoughts about holding a show trial. Or executions.

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-they.html

Worth a read.

Also,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/26/wiran26.xml

Britain's position received support from other European Union countries yesterday. President Jacques Chirac of France said Britain had the "complete solidarity" of all EU leaders over the sailors.

"It seems clear they were not in the Iranian zone at the time," he said.

Seems that the EU doesn't buy the "they were in Iranian waters" bullshit, either.

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2007/03/where-are-they.html

Worth a read.

Well can't say the guy isn't honest about his objectives...

Winston is a pen name for a Canada based Pro-America, Pro-Israel Iranian neo-conservative, seeking regime change in Iran! Winston is also a supporter of the Global War on Terrorism & President Bush's policies in the middle-east. --------- ((On a side note: This weblog is to side with the Neo-con American Right-wing Zionist/Christian Imperialist Conspiracies against the Iranian Mullahocracy. If this is your cup of tea, please enjoy your stay here. If not, please back off & don't waste your time - Thanks))

Well can't say the guy isn't honest about his objectives...

Can't find anything inaccurate about the information, either.

Can't find anything inaccurate about the information, either.

Speculation....not information.

The answer to that question is: Detain your troops and send them home. Point made.

NOT detain your troops, make a big noise about it, and threaten to put them on trial, pushing both countries to the brink of war. That's just stupid.

Piffle.

I'm sure if the US found Soviet saliors in their waters around the US coast there would have been just the same reaction. People should get off their damn highhorse about this.

Seems that the EU doesn't buy the "they were in Iranian waters" bullshit, either.

Hardly surprising, but good them anyway. A bit of unity goes a long way when they're in negotiations at the moment.

I'm sure if the US found Soviet saliors in their waters around the US coast there would have been just the same reaction. People should get off their damn highhorse about this.


In consideration of the fact that

a. The Iranians had already threatened to do this, and...
b. Tried it just before, against US troops who were well inside the Iraqi border, and..
c. Witnesses, including Iraqi civilians, say the ship being boarded by the UK forces in question was ANCHORED inside Iraqi waters...

it sounds like fucking bullshit when Iran claims the UK people were within their waters.

During the engagement with US forces, the Iranians demanded that the US force accompany them back into Iran, under threat of death.

The US forces shot their way out of the situation.

Here's the previous run in with Iranians who wanted to capture US or UK forces:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070323/23iran.htm

During a joint border patrol, both American and Iraqi soldiers saw two Iranian soldiers run from Iraq back across the Iranian border as they approached. The patrol then came upon a single Iranian soldier, on the Iraqi side of the border, who did not flee.

While the joint U.S.-Iraqi patrol was speaking with the soldier, according to the report, the patrol was "approached by a platoon-size element of Iranian soldiers." An Iranian border captain then told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that "if they tried to leave their location, the Iranians would fire upon them." During this conversation with the Iranian captain, Iranian forces began firing and continued when U.S. troops tried to withdraw.

Iraqi and American forces returned fire "to break contact and left the area to report the incident," the report noted. "The Iranian forces continued to fire indirect fire well into Iraq as Coalition Force soldiers withdrew; for reasons unknown at this time, the Iraqi Army forces remained behind."

No American soldiers were wounded in the incident.

Sounds like they were using live bait, and when that didn't work, they tried to force the US soldiers across the border under threat of death.

Seems like Iran is trying to provoke a war.