NationStates Jolt Archive

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/us.iraq.ap/index.htm):
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Assistant press secretary Dana Perino held a surprise press conference early Sunday evening, articulating the White House's hardening stance on the Iran hostage crisis.

Perino made a series of aggressive statements that many are calling a prelude to war with the theocratic regime.

"Right now, the Iranian leadership is throwing down the gauntlet," Perino said. "Confronted with open belligerence and an uncooperative government, the United States is being left with fewer and fewer viable options."

Iran was accused of illegally seizing 15 British soldiers in the Persian Gulf last week. American and British officials insist that the incident took place in Iraqi territorial waters, while Iranian leaders claim the ships had strayed across the border.

Little has been done to defuse the situation. Although British diplomats have struggled to resolve the situation peacefully, increasingly hostile statements from Iran and the United States is making these hopes dimmer with each day.

"Freedom-loving nations around the world will agree that Iran's actions are unconscionable," Perino continued. "The United States and its allies demand that the Iranian military release these hostages immediately -- or more serious responses will be undertaken."

Over the last few days, reports have trickled in from intelligence agencies around the world that American forces in the region are gathering for an attack. Most troubling was Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov's contention that a sneak attack is planned for the Easter weekend.

"Operation Bite", as he claims the maneuver is called, would allegedly involve a large-scale aerial bombing of key Iranian facilities, from military bases to nuclear research facilities to government offices.

Leading analysts have dismissed Uglanov's claims as a mere publicity stunt. Reports from numerous European sources, however, have echoed his words.

"Such disregard for peace and international law will not be tolerated," President Bush stated Friday after a speech to Detroit autoworkers. "If Iran thinks that it can defy the world without consequences, then it's sorely mistaken." Many claim that Mr. Bush's rhetoric is running counter to advice from his own diplomatic staff.

Democratic leadership in Congress, meanwhile, has been struggling to find a way to stop the potential conflict.

"Another war in the Middle East would be disastrous for the United States," said Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA). "We hardly have the troops, resources, and funds necessary to handle Iraq and Afghanistan. Attacking Iran now would be a tremendous error." Waxman is a strong supporter of ending the Iraq war.

"Yet here we are, moving towards a senseless war just as blindly as we did in 2003." Waxman declined to comment further.
Emphasis added.

Things are not sounding good. Could Bush really be foolish enough to attack Iran now, even while the British are trying to be civil? Not to mention his ridiculous cowboy attitude about the whole thing, which I thought he'd learn to drop by now. I don't even want to think of the implications...

I don't know, we're running out of options. Iran's blatant act of aggression against the UK and its violation of Iraqi waters in the process has to be dealt with one way or another. Personally, I think it's a sign that the regime is falling apart and they're grasping for ways to solidify public support behind Ahmadinejad's disasterous policies and conceal the damage he has done to the country.

A war would be very unwise, but we need to show that we're not going to allow them to do things like that without consequences.

Unless he manages to create some new troops from somewhere then he can't really (assuming he doesn't do something really crazy like nuke the place, and I don't think he will) or tries to pull out of Iraq and head straight into Iran. But I can't see him doing either.

So just an attempt at macho-dick-waving-rhetoric.

I fear Iraq may have sparked a regional war.

I fear Iraq may have sparked a regional war.

Thanks for another crusade Bush. *facepalm*

Could Bush really be foolish enough to attack Iran now

Yep. It's been coming for some time. It won't matter how unpopular it is or what Congress does or, for that matter, what the truth is. He's a War President, and as long as people are debating about which way to fuck Middle Easterners is best, they're not debating about what a stinking shithole this scumfuck texan black-oil spoon is.

I just knew this was going to start deteriorating once Dubya got on the scene.

Iran's economy is unstable and Ahmadinejad's got abysmal approval ratings, couldn't we use sanctions on Iran?

Iran's economy is unstable and Ahmadinejad's got abysmal approval ratings, couldn't we use sanctions on Iran?

Yes, yes and god yes. Short term sanctions will accomplish a lot more than this sabre rattling.

Iran will back down or they will face being crushed between "the horns of the bull".



Also that link is dead so I call bullshit.

Oh god no, can't you Americans remember what happened last time you tried a rescue mission in Iran?

Yes, yes and god yes. Short term sanctions will accomplish a lot more than this sabre rattling.

Sanction them back to the stone age!

Also that link is dead so I call bullshit.
Huh. I don't know what the problem is -- I just copied the URL. *goes off to search for original*

Huh. I don't know what the problem is -- I just copied the URL. *goes off to search for original*

You need to put an L at the end:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Html, not htm. ;p

You need to put an L at the end:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Html, not htm. ;p
That's not the right article, though... :confused:

EDIT: I had several news tabs open, so I may have just snagged the wrong one.

I don’t think a few British sailors are worth a major war, I say we give Iran some nice sanctions in about a months time hopefully the prisoners will be released and we can get to arguing about what happened

Then again this is the U.S government….does anyone have a spare cyanide capsule?

The fact is, the UK keeps saying they didn't enter Iranian borders, and that they can release the data that proves it, but they haven't released it! If they want to be believed, just release the damn data and let the world decide. The only reason they could be suppressing it now is because they know they were violating Iranian sovereignty, because they ordered them to do so. You guys know right that the UK sailors actually confessed to crossing into Iranian waters on live television right? And the UK has only said 'Iran isn't fooling anyone', not a word about torture or the like. I smell a rat.

Also, has anyone seen former US UN ambassador Bolton's statements on this? The guy has become like the banned troll of the UN message board, saying that diplomacy is weakness and force needs to be used to topple the Republic. It's ludicrous.

I weep for the future.

I still haven't seen any evidenced to convince me that my government isn't lying about where our sailors were.

However, the Iranians having to change the co-ordinates twice over this mess doesn't make me disbelieve my government either.

But going to war over this would be ridiculous.

We're not going to war with Iran.

Meh. The criticism last week was the Bush and Congress weren't speaking up about the British hostages, but now he's being too vocal, threatening, etc. I seriously doubt we'll see a military confrontation with Iran.

The fact is, the UK keeps saying they didn't enter Iranian borders, and that they can release the data that proves it, but they haven't released it! If they want to be believed, just release the damn data and let the world decide. The only reason they could be suppressing it now is because they know they were violating Iranian sovereignty, because they ordered them to do so. You guys know right that the UK sailors actually confessed to crossing into Iranian waters on live television right? And the UK has only said 'Iran isn't fooling anyone', not a word about torture or the like. I smell a rat.

Also, has anyone seen former US UN ambassador Bolton's statements on this? The guy has become like the banned troll of the UN message board, saying that diplomacy is weakness and force needs to be used to topple the Republic. It's ludicrous.



The UK doesn't really need to supply evidence their sailors weren't in Iranian waters, the Iranians were nice enough to do that themselves. I take any televised confession with a grain of salt, I doubt they've been tortured, but they were likely threatened with it, which can be more effective than the real thing.

And yea, Bolton is crazy.

Even that stupid Bush knows a war with Iran will only bring nightmares. It's only America and Britain that are stuck in Iraq, so it's a suicide for these two countries to start another war with Iraq's immediate and larger neighbor. Remember now even while America was crossing into Iraq's borders, it is said that Saddam was more scared of Iran to his east :D In Iraq, America has the luxury to debate about whether they stay in that country or leave but once they step into Iran, they will be swallowed in, ever heard of sand quake? America has a hard time controlling the minority groups of Iraq :D, what makes you think America will control a more united and committed nation like Iran that has no Sunni/Shia tension because Iran is all Shia? America didn’t attack Iran then when Iran took American hostages in the 70's and America won’t go to war with Iran for the sake of few British soldiers, that’s the truth.

well lets put it this way, the next twenty years are going to be interesting.......:(

Same retarded internet Meme that we see over and over again about the "imminent" war with Iran. For fucks sake, we've had this same sort of horseshit article floating about in the spring of '04, and never has the prediction been true.

Get. Over. It.

It's some sort of bizarre mental masturbation that brings this crap up, just let the stupid rumors die!

America didn’t attack Iran then when Iran took American hostages in the 70's and America won’t go to war with Iran for the sake of few British soldiers, that’s the truth.

Ronald Reagan certainly threatened to do so.

And the Iranians at the time took him very, very seriously.

In re: the idea of attacking Iran

1. It's useless to have nuclear weapons in a world where using just one will turn your nation into an international pariah. So you can't really threaten someone with them.

2. It's useless to have a military if it isn't able to project enough power beyond your borders to crush another nation that fucks with you - unless you like handing out food parcels and getting your soldiers killed on UN missions by people armed with wooden sticks (I'm speaking of Kosovo there), or your soldiers kidnapped by Iranians.

3. Even if you have a military capable of crushing another nation into rubble (without permanently occupying it), it's useless if your citizens can't tolerate the idea of a few thousand dead on your side, or a few hundred thousand dead on the other side. It makes your military effectivelty useless - an enemy need only wait until either threshold is reached, and they win.

4. Without a credible military, in a world where sanctions have no effect on changing the minds of governments such as Iran or Iraq, you have absolutely no leverage whatsoever on their behavior, and they know it.

5. Diplomacy then, at that point, is where your nation is reduced to begging for your troops back.

I hope not. I'm screwed if there is.

Silly, Iraq already went to war with Iran. That was like 67 years ago. :rolleyes:

I hope not. I'm screwed if there is.

I guess by your sig that your Muslim, probably Iranian?

America would be just as screwed as Iran in a war, because we don't have the resources to fight a 3rd war and still maintain the semblence of a peacetime economy.

We're not going to war with Iran.

I wish I shared your youthful enthusiasm. :(

We are not going to war with Iran. We haven't even finished the other two counties. The troops need some down time, equipment needs repairs,etc.

Never mind the fact the public would be SO against it.

At least with Iraq he had some support by the people. It's only the diehards left now. And even then they aren't all there.

Not going to happen.....

Never mind the fact the public would be SO against it.

Since when has Bush cared what the public thinks?

He wouldn't go for all out war. A dozen airstrikes maybe. Another Rescue mission (Hopefully not a repeat of the LAST rescue mission in Iran). Or...

Umm... Question, does Bush need Congressional Approval to use Neutron bombs? If not then I'm REALLY worried now.

Silly, Iraq already went to war with Iran. That was like 30 years ago. :rolleyes:

Fix'd

Question, does Bush need Congressional Approval to use Neutron bombs? If not then I'm REALLY worried now.You want to use Neutron bombs against Iran?

He wouldn't go for all out war. good

A dozen airstrikes maybe.dude, that is in fact starting a War.

If Bush bombs Iran, with neutron bombs.. or any kind of Bombs.. He is starting a war.

Lol, Bush can barely get approval to give hs troops bullets and food, how the heck is he going to invade Iran?

Well, it's after midnight by my clock. All I have to say to you is this:

Really, now...
Have another look at that article.
Aren't you noticing something?
On its left-hand side...
Maybe some secret message?
I hope I didn't worry you too much...

:D

Lol, Bush can barely get approval to give hs troops bullets and food, how the heck is he going to invade Iran?

Bush doesn't need approval, he's master and chief of the fucking armed forces. Now although congress has increased spending for the troops, 20 million for grasshopper pesticides alone, they won't support a war with Iran. We'll roll in Tehran on flat tires.

If anyone deserves to get glassed it's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for illegally capturing British sailors and threatening Israel. He's not the kind of guy you want running much of anything.

As far as I know, the President requires Congressional approval for a Declaration of War, yes?

As far as I know, the President requires Congressional approval for a Declaration of War, yes?

An official decleration of war, but in case of an emergency (Iran invades Iraq now) the president can declare war and remain in that state for six months, at which congress then must approve in order to continue.

Vietnam. *nods*

Well, it's after midnight by my clock. All I have to say to you is this:

Really, now...
Have another look at that article.
Aren't you noticing something?
On its left-hand side...
Maybe some secret message?
I hope I didn't worry you too much...

:D

Nice.

An official decleration of war, but in case of an emergency (Iran invades Iraq now) the president can declare war and remain in that state for six months, at which congress then must approve in order to continue.

Vietnam. *nods*

Well undeclared 'interventionary' wars like Vietnam have never been popular. I'd think Iran would have to do something alot more drastic from capturing a few British sailers and giving some insurgents some weapons.

Well undeclared 'interventionary' wars like Vietnam have never been popular. I'd think Iran would have to do something alot more drastic from capturing a few British sailers and giving some insurgents some weapons.

Who said iran had to do anything?

*cough* Tonkin *cough*

*cough* USS Maine *cough*

You want to use Neutron bombs against Iran?

good

dude, that is in fact starting a War.

If Bush bombs Iran, with neutron bombs.. or any kind of Bombs.. He is starting a war.

Arguable. But he might be finishing it . . .

Who said iran had to do anything?

*cough* Tonkin *cough*

*cough* USS Maine *cough*

You might want to get that cough checked out. It sound serious. :)

You might want to get that cough checked out. It sound serious. :)

It's Historical Pneumonia, very unpleasant :(

*cough* Demosthenes *choke*

Arguable. But he might be finishing it . . .If Bush starts a War vs Iran.. it is going to be considerably more difficult to end that war.. than the one we have with Iraq.

Was going to say something like 'I thought by now you Americans were a little more adept at not being led astray by your governments lies.....'

...Stops talking

If Bush starts a War vs Iran.. it is going to be considerably more difficult to end that war.. than the one we have with Iraq.

Assuming the material to fund and supply the insurgents dries up in Iraq due to an Iranian war. That material would stay in Iran to fight instead of being shipped to Iraq at the moment. The insurgency could dry up in Iraq with a war raging in Iran. I personally do not think the Iranian government is as tough as people think. I bet it will fold fairly quickly. Although that depends on the strategy that the allies would use to knock out the Iranian government.

As far as I know, the President requires Congressional approval for a Declaration of War, yes?

The last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941.

Couldn't we just pay them for the soldiers or something?

Was going to say something like 'I thought by now you Americans were a little more adept at not being led astray by your governments lies.....'

...Stops talking
Muahahahaha...

I do believe I had the only April Fool's joke on NSG that people actually fell for.

Of course, that's only because the current Administration is so incompetent that its real-life actions are easy to confuse with an April Fool's Day hoax...

Assuming the material to fund and supply the insurgents dries up in Iraq due to an Iranian war. That material would stay in Iran to fight instead of being shipped to Iraq at the moment. The insurgency could dry up in Iraq with a war raging in Iran. I personally do not think the Iranian government is as tough as people think. I bet it will fold fairly quickly. Although that depends on the strategy that the allies would use to knock out the Iranian government.

You really think that a significant number of Iraqi "insurgents" are being funded by Iran?

If any military action does take place it would and should only be aerial bombardment. NATO won the Kosovo war using planes alone.:cool:

Assuming the material to fund and supply the insurgents dries up in Iraq due to an Iranian war. That material would stay in Iran to fight instead of being shipped to Iraq at the moment. The insurgency could dry up in Iraq with a war raging in Iran. I personally do not think the Iranian government is as tough as people think. I bet it will fold fairly quickly. Although that depends on the strategy that the allies would use to knock out the Iranian government.

Yeah but in order to rout the Iranian military thoroughly would require massive amounts of resources, troops and the like, even for the US. It wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan. Hell, the last time you guys really fought a conventional war was WWII really.

If any military action does take place it would and should only be aerial bombardment. NATO won the Kosovo war using planes alone.:cool:

Oh yeah, and the Balkans are going so well...:rolleyes:

You really think that a significant number of Iraqi "insurgents" are being funded by Iran?

I think Iran has a big hand in it. However you said could we give Iran money for the hostages? You were joking right?

Unless he manages to create some new troops from somewhere then he can't really (assuming he doesn't do something really crazy like nuke the place, and I don't think he will) or tries to pull out of Iraq and head straight into Iran. But I can't see him doing either.

So just an attempt at macho-dick-waving-rhetoric.

The argument that Bush would refrain from an action simply because it's insane was used, as I recall, with great effect in late 2002 and early 2003. The man in question has, or had, an aide who sneered at administration critics as being part of the "reality-based community." These people are nuts.

Yeah but in order to rout the Iranian military thoroughly would require massive amounts of resources, troops and the like, even for the US. It wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan. Hell, the last time you guys really fought a conventional war was WWII really.

How were Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea not conventional?

Oh yeah, and the Balkans are going so well...:rolleyes:

They are not in the best of shape however the war was won using airpower.

If any military action does take place it would and should only be aerial bombardment. NATO won the Kosovo war using planes alone.:cool:Kosovo and Iran
apples and oranges.

As far as I know, the President requires Congressional approval for a Declaration of War, yes?

yes that is true.

However, our last "official" war was WWII.

Yeah but in order to rout the Iranian military thoroughly would require massive amounts of resources, troops and the like, even for the US. It wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan. Hell, the last time you guys really fought a conventional war was WWII really.

The US has fought much bigger enemies then Iran and Iraq at the same time. If the will was there we could roll over Iran.
I think that an air war would be the ideal method of attack. The unrest in Iran would bubble to the surface and probably start a civil war within the country itself. All the US/UK would have to do is contain the borders and let the dust settle within the nation itself. However fund and arm the side we wanted to win.

Since when has Bush cared what the public thinks?

Ah! But the congressman he needs do care what the public thinks.

He may start something, but he will not get the funds to "really" start something.....

What I was saying is that the US is exceeding good at toppling regimes, not exceedingly bad at maintaining them.

All the US/UK would have to do is ....hmmm..
Is Bush planning to involve the Brits on this one too?

hmmm..
Is Bush planning to involve the Brits on this one too?

seeing how the 15 british hostages are one of the reasons pointed out in the article.....YES

hmmm..
Is Bush planning to involve the Brits on this one too?

Well, the sailors captured are British, surely he wouldn't start a war with Iran without the UK's support and approval?

Well, the sailors captured are British, surely Bush wouldn't start a war with Iran without the UK's support and approval?So.. what is the % Level of approval (in the UK) for a War vs Iran over the 15 Marines?

8%

I dont believe that a war between Britian/Us against Iran will happen. But I do believe that the US or UK should Try A Assassination Attemp on the Irans President somehow. Than Have not enough Evidence that it was US/UK's Assassin that did it, maybe have cover thinking Insurgents against Irans President did it. But If there was any war, say like UK decleared War on Iran, The Us and Other Allies Including Israel would be forced to join that war. :( But We would just have to kick some ass if that happened. :mp5:

So.. what is the % Level of approval (in the UK) for a War vs Iran over the 15 Marines?

8%my mistake.. Its only 7% (who want to go to war over the marines)

I dont believe that a war between Britian/Us against Iran will happen. But I do believe that the US or UK should Try A Assassination Attemp on the Irans President somehow. Than Have not enough Evidence that it was US/UK's Assassin that did it, maybe have cover thinking Insurgents against Irans President did it. But If there was any war, say like UK decleared War on Iran, The Us and Other Allies Including Israel would be forced to join that war. :( But We would just have to kick some ass if that happened. :mp5:as long as you understand the following:
Assassinating a President is an act of War.. (just like air strikes).. and that if the War goes badly (like the Iraq war).. It is going to be 100% our fault (Like the Iraq war).

my mistake.. Its only 7% (who want to go to war over the marines)

Given that it's been about ten days, the bulk of the general public (even evil conservatives such as myself) still wants diplomacy. And rightly so.

However, let this start to drag out...with show trials, and an extended length of time (such as the 1979 US hostage crises), and that number will climb exceedingly higher.

BTW, nice job on this, Rhaomi! :cool:

What I was saying is that the US is exceeding good at toppling regimes, not exceedingly bad at maintaining them.

Not true. We've managed to help several dictatorial regimes maintain power for decades. ;)

Given that it's been about ten days, the bulk of the general public (even evil conservatives such as myself) still wants diplomacy. And rightly so.

However, let this start to drag out...with show trials, and an extended length of time (such as the 1979 US hostage crises), and that number will climb exceedingly higher.

BTW, nice job on this, Rhaomi! :cool:If the UK gov. really wanted to move that 7% number.. all they need to do is release the "evidence" they claim to have.. about the boat being outside Iranian territory.

Not true. We've managed to help several dictatorial regimes maintain power for decades. ;)aww
good one... good reply.
I think AP was underestimating you. :cool:

aww
good one... good reply.
I think AP was underestimating you. :cool:

Thanks. :D

You People Are MORONS!!!
Until Iran is stopped, terrorism will grow. More troops will be killed in Iraq by Iranian wepons. Oh and by the way..Are you forgtting abot Irans enriched uranium? There is only one use for that..... Its to bad they wont use it on you leftist europens first.... and dont forget.... you leftist eropeans would not even be there if it wasnt for us americans saving your asses in War1 and War2.

You People Are MORONS!!!
Until Iran is stopped, terrorism will grow. More troops will be killed in Iraq by Iranian wepons. Oh and by the way..Are you forgtting abot Irans enriched uranium? There is only one use for that..... Its to bad they wont use it on you leftist europens first.... and dont forget.... you leftist eropeans would not even be there if it wasnt for us americans saving your asses in War1 and War2.YourModisBetter? ... i dont think so :p

You People Are MORONS!!!
Until Iran is stopped, terrorism will grow. More troops will be killed in Iraq by Iranian wepons. Oh and by the way..Are you forgtting abot Irans enriched uranium? There is only one use for that..... Its to bad they wont use it on you leftist europens first.... and dont forget.... you leftist eropeans would not even be there if it wasnt for us americans saving your asses in War1 and War2.

Welcome to NSG.

Zomg We Must Nukzorz The Middle East Nowz!!!

If the UK gov. really wanted to move that 7% number.. all they need to do is release the "evidence" they claim to have.. about the boat being outside Iranian territory.

Apparently, they already have, no?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/proof-british-sailors-in-iraqi-waters/2007/03/28/1174761571015.html

THE dispute over 15 British naval personnel captured by Iran's Revolutionary Guard deepened yesterday as the British Government released global positioning data and other evidence to prove the marines were well inside Iraqi waters when they were captured last week.

The incident happened 1.7 nautical miles within Iraqi waters, Britain's Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, Vice Admiral Charles Style, told a news conference.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/28/iran.uk.sailors/index.html

The British Ministry of Defence has given what it said was proof the British ship HMS Cornwall, which was carrying the sailors and marines, never strayed into Iranian waters.

The global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters and that the boat was "ambushed" by the Iranian forces, British Vice Adm. Charles Style said.

A map with coordinates that Iran provided on Saturday "turned out to confirm [the sailors] were in Iraqi waters," and Iraq has supported that position, Style said.

Iran later provided a second set of coordinates on Monday that placed the vessel inside Iranian waters, Style said. Those coordinates placed the ship "over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel had boarded when captured.

The "change of coordinates," Style said "is hard to legitimate."

Of course, Iran can counter with this (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1258607,00.html). But I know who I believe.

as long as you understand the following:
Assassinating a President is an act of War.. (just like air strikes).. and that if the War goes badly (like the Iraq war).. It is going to be 100% our fault (Like the Iraq war).

Hire Merienaries. and make sure that they can't tie it back to us. Also, using Airstrikes that involve Nuclear Weapons, will never happen. :sniper:

Hire Merienaries. and make sure that they can't tie it back to us. Also, using Airstrikes that involve Nuclear Weapons, will never happen. :sniper:

Mercenaries.

The unrest in Iran would bubble to the surface and probably start a civil war within the country itself. All the US/UK would have to do is contain the borders and let the dust settle within the nation itself. However fund and arm the side we wanted to win.

Okay... We bomb the Iranians, and then they start hating and killing each other? Thier fellow Shiite brethren? I think not.

Any military action against Iran would only strengthen national unity and hatred for the USA within Iran, effectively saving the Iranian government from the relatively imminent insurrection it faces. You don't go shooting at your neighbour when it was the American jet overhead that just bombed your house.

Hire Merienaries. and make sure that they can't tie it back to us. Also, using Airstrikes that involve Nuclear Weapons, will never happen. :sniper:

You realise this is "real-life" war not Noob II Nationstates war?

and dont forget.... you leftist eropeans would not even be there if it wasnt for us americans saving your asses in War1 and War2.
You mean these guys?

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2719/warai7.png

You mean these guys?

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2719/warai7.png

LMFAO

Of course, Iran can counter with (their own propaganda). But I know who I believe.You do trust Tony Blair.. but.. you are not the British public opinion.

You do trust Tony Blair.. but.. you are not the British public opinion.

Fair enough.

You do trust Tony Blair.. but.. you are not the British public opinion.

Have you seen Blair approval ratings, their atrocious.

Have you seen Blair approval ratings, their atrocious.I have not seen them.. but I had a feeling.

None of our politicians are doing too well.
I seem to trust the British evidence more than that of the Iranians. For example; The position given by the Royal Navy did not change. Also consider the letter home from one of the sailors, requesting us to withdraw out troops from Iraq.

In half a year, when the american media has played you, almoust all of you americans will support a war with Iran thinking that it's an enormous threat to the world.

war with iran? nah, not even bush is that stupid.

rescue mission, probably likely (that's a definite maybe). but what's iran going to do after a rescue mission? it's not like they can wage war anywhere except iraq, and that would just be stupid.

of course, here's me counting on folk not doing things twice in one post because they're stupid.

Damn, the government of Iran is a lot more stupid than I thought.

Everybody's tired of their whole hostage routine. It was lame when they did it the first time.

Hopefully, they'll wise up and return the dudes so that everyone will calm the fuck down.

Even if they were in Iranian waters (which I don't believe), there still would have been more reasonable ways of responding to that. Such as "what are you doing in our waters? get the hell off our territory."

Even if they were in Iranian waters (which I don't believe), there still would have been more reasonable ways of responding to that. Such as "what are you doing in our waters? get the hell off our territory."

Of course there would have been more reasonable ways to solve it but I highly doubt that this has anything to do with the soldiers beeing a couple of meters on the wrong side of the border. This is a political game and the captured soldiers are just bricks in it.

Of course there would have been more reasonable ways to solve it but I highly doubt that this has anything to do with the soldiers beeing a couple of meters on the wrong side of the border. This is a political game and the captured soldiers are just bricks in it.

Yeah, sucks for them. I know it's a political game, but I think it was stupid for Iran to play this particular move. I don't see any good coming to them because of it.

Muahahahaha...

I do believe I had the only April Fool's joke on NSG that people actually fell for.

Of course, that's only because the current Administration is so incompetent that its real-life actions are easy to confuse with an April Fool's Day hoax...


You'd be wrong: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=522811


:D

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/us.iraq.ap/index.htm):

Emphasis added.

Things are not sounding good. Could Bush really be foolish enough to attack Iran now, even while the British are trying to be civil? Not to mention his ridiculous cowboy attitude about the whole thing, which I thought he'd learn to drop by now. I don't even want to think of the implications...Are you really asking those questions?
Of course that little prick is.
The trick is to make it look like it's in everyone else's best interests.

The trick is to make it look like it's in everyone else's best interests.Like the Iraq invasion? :D :D :D :rolleyes:

Like the Iraq invasion? :D :D :D :rolleyes:

As Borat might say,
"High-five!"

:D

Have you seen Blair approval ratings, their atrocious.
Independent of being "Bush's Bitch", his own actions have resulted in those dwindling numbers.
*nods*

Okay... We bomb the Iranians, and then they start hating and killing each other? Thier fellow Shiite brethren? I think not.

Any military action against Iran would only strengthen national unity and hatred for the USA within Iran, effectively saving the Iranian government from the relatively imminent insurrection it faces. You don't go shooting at your neighbour when it was the American jet overhead that just bombed your house.


I was personally around in 1979 to remember the news reports coming out of Iran during the revolution. Yes they do kill their fellow Shiite brethren. There seems to be a problem right now with the population vs the government. I also did not say the Allies should bomb civilian targets. Only knock out military and some infrastructure such as power.

I don't know why we haven't invaded yet. England -- as well as any other country -- needs to actively protect their soldiers form being kidnapped and taken hostages. We all know Iran is only holding out until it gets some kind of ransom. Supporting our troops means exactly that, and England isn't doing much to show any support for these 15. It's time to lock and load and go after ahmadewhatever.:sniper:

I also did not say the Allies should bomb civilian targets. Only knock out military and some infrastructure such as power.

Which, if Iran is like other countries in the region, will no doubt be nestled in with milk powder factories, kindergartens, and Chinese embassies.

Which, if Iran is like other countries in the region, will no doubt be nestled in with milk powder factories, kindergartens, and Chinese embassies.
THAT's why they continued 24 for this season!

I was personally around in 1979 to remember the news reports coming out of Iran during the revolution. Yes they do kill their fellow Shiite brethren. There seems to be a problem right now with the population vs the government. I also did not say the Allies should bomb civilian targets. Only knock out military and some infrastructure such as power.

Exactly. There is a divide between the government and the population. But my point is a war or any other military strike with Iran will have that issue swept under the carpet as the Iranian national unity kicks in.

We have to leave the Iranian people to cause insurrection against thier own government. An attack by the US/UK will simply turn all the Iranians against us.

Exactly. There is a divide between the government and the population. But my point is a war or any other military strike with Iran will have that issue swept under the carpet as the Iranian national unity kicks in.

We have to leave the Iranian people to cause insurrection against thier own government. An attack by the US/UK will simply turn all the Iranians against us.

Good post. *bows*

Good post. *bows*

Thank you very much.

Damn, the government of Iran is a lot more stupid than I thought.

Everybody's tired of their whole hostage routine. It was lame when they did it the first time.

Hopefully, they'll wise up and return the dudes so that everyone will calm the fuck down.

Even if they were in Iranian waters (which I don't believe), there still would have been more reasonable ways of responding to that. Such as "what are you doing in our waters? get the hell off our territory."

Actually the first time kind of made sense if you knew what happened the first time the Iranians had overthrown the Shah. The US planned a counter revolution against the Prime Minister of Iran using the office of the US embassy nonetheless. So for the Iranians, they were thinking along the lines of " this time that shit aint going to happen"

Iran is insane no doubt, but thankfully for the US they pretty much got the support of the Sunni world when it comes to Iran.

I do not think we have arrived at the point where military action is imminent. Moreover, military action would not free the prisoners.

On a different note: my visit to Iran is planned in two weeks… While these people are trying to get out I am trying to get in… This crisis does not help my visa application. I am so looking forward to my visit of Iran. Have been planning for 9 months now :(

Iran is insane no doubt, but thankfully for the US they pretty much got the support of the Sunni world when it comes to Iran.

Yup, the US and Al-Qaeda are on the same page there :)

I do not think we have arrived at the point where military action is imminent. Moreover, military action would not free the prisoners.

On a different note: my visit to Iran is planned in two weeks… While these people are trying to get out I am trying to get in… This crisis does not help my visa application. I am so looking forward to my visit of Iran. Have been planning for 9 months now :(

Gee, that sucks man. I would love to travel to the Middle East, especially some country like Iran, or Jordan. I hope you know the location of your embassy in Tehran. You may very well be forced to evacuate the country as soon as you get there if Bush continues his cowboy diplomacy.

If they want war so much as it seems, I wonder if they'd go so far as to declare war on us if they couldn't get us to declare war on them.

Then perhaps we could just hold defensive positions on the Iraqi border while they sent their sons to die there. Perhaps then discontent among the populace would grow much as it did here with the Iraq war as the body count increases and the reasons for the war in the first place seem to be more and more flimsy.

These are just musings of course, don't take them too seriously. Hopefully Iran will see that war isn't going to help anybody and return the dudes.

If they want war so much as it seems, I wonder if they'd go so far as to declare war on us if they couldn't get us to declare war on them.

Then perhaps we could just hold defensive positions on the Iraqi border while they sent their sons to die there. Perhaps then discontent among the populace would grow much as it did here with the Iraq war as the body count increases and the reasons for the war in the first place seem to be more and more flimsy.

These are just musings of course, don't take them too seriously. Hopefully Iran will see that war isn't going to help anybody and return the dudes.

Oh heavens to betsy, no.

The Iranian authorities would accept nothing other than the role of helpless yet brave and steadfast Islamic Republic against the powerful, aggressive, Zionist western powers.

I don't know why we haven't invaded yet. England -- as well as any other country -- needs to actively protect their soldiers form being kidnapped and taken hostages. We all know Iran is only holding out until it gets some kind of ransom. Supporting our troops means exactly that, and England isn't doing much to show any support for these 15. It's time to lock and load and go after ahmadewhatever.:sniper:
Is it some sort of rule that every first post has to have a gun smiley in it? I must have missed the memo when I first joined.

Oh heavens to betsy, no.

The Iranian authorities would accept nothing other than the role of helpless yet brave and steadfast Islamic Republic against the powerful, aggressive, Zionist western powers.

What if we just did nothing though? Like not invade when they expected invasion and just waited for them to come to us? I don't think we should start a war with them. If the Iranian government wants a war, let them start it and try to invade shit.

There will not be a war, unless the United Kingdom decides to attack Iran, and then and only then will the USA join the war. The USA, will not attack for the british solders unless the UK asks us to join them in one. As Great Britian does not seem to be moving in that direction, and instead is relying on diplomacy and threatening to shut down the Iran banks in the UK, along with sanctions, my guess is we are a long way from a war.

From CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/us.iraq.ap/index.htm):

Emphasis added.

Things are not sounding good. Could Bush really be foolish enough to attack Iran now, even while the British are trying to be civil? Not to mention his ridiculous cowboy attitude about the whole thing, which I thought he'd learn to drop by now. I don't even want to think of the implications...

Yeah. He doesn't care what the country thinks, sort of like King Andy.

Yeah. He doesn't care what the country thinks, sort of like King Andy.

Please, one thing that everyone loves to bring up about the United States, yet is seemingly left off in this thread is the fact that Americans only think of American interests. Right now, it is not in the interests of the USA to get in another war. Unless the UK decides to go to war over these 15 sailors, the USA will most likely not do anything more than sanctions. Besides unless Iran can be linked directly to an attack on the United States of America, on it's soil and civilians are killed, congress will not give the funding for a war with Iran.

Please, one thing that everyone loves to bring up about the United States, yet is seemingly left off in this thread is the fact that Americans only think of American interests. Right now, it is not in the interests of the USA to get in another war. Unless the UK decides to go to war over these 15 sailors, the USA will most likely not do anything more than sanctions.

The US is already doing its own sanctions. So in essence, the US won't be doing anything.

Please, one thing that everyone loves to bring up about the United States, yet is seemingly left off in this thread is the fact that Americans only think of American interests. Right now, it is not in the interests of the USA to get in another war. Unless the UK decides to go to war over these 15 sailors, the USA will most likely not do anything more than sanctions. Besides unless Iran can be linked directly to an attack on the United States of America, on it's soil and civilians are killed, congress will not give the funding for a war with Iran.

That'd make sense.

You want to use Neutron bombs against Iran?
If Bush bombs Iran, with neutron bombs.. or any kind of Bombs.. He is starting a war. Hell no I don't want Bush starting a war.

We hit Iraq with missile strikes back in the late 90s remember? I doubt that was a war.

Hell no I don't want Bush starting a war.make up your mind.
if Bush sends the war planes and unload the bombs.. it would be an act of War.

another Bushfuckup. No surprise.

*ADDED*

Well, at least it will MOST LIKELY PROBABLY 99.99% happen as another Bushfuckup. Thats all it is these days. He cant even speak Engrish for Christ sake. Yes. Engrish.

make up your mind.
if Bush sends the war planes and unload the bombs.. it would be an act of War.

And kidnapping soldiers in sovereign water is what?

And kidnapping soldiers in sovereign water is what?

exactly.

And kidnapping soldiers in sovereign water is what?You got it all backwards.
the Iranians say it is sovereign water.
the Brits say it is not.

but capturing the Marines outside Iranian sovereign waters.. is in fact an act of war.

now here is the question: who do we want to believe.. who do I want to believe.. Tony Blair?

The US has fought much bigger enemies then Iran and Iraq at the same time. If the will was there we could roll over Iran.
I think that an air war would be the ideal method of attack. The unrest in Iran would bubble to the surface and probably start a civil war within the country itself. All the US/UK would have to do is contain the borders and let the dust settle within the nation itself. However fund and arm the side we wanted to win.

Uh, maybe it's because I don't derive sexual pleasure from the death of brown people, but I don't understand how any of what you describe is at all desirable.

Uh, maybe it's because I don't derive sexual pleasure from the death of brown people, but I don't understand how any of what you describe is at all desirable.

Number one I was describing a method of an Iranian takedown if it is needed. The best method is through political means.

Also you should know that Iranians are not brown people but light skinned for the most part. However if they were mostly brown it would make no difference.

What does any of this have to do with sexual pleasure? Unless of course your talking some hot Persian babes.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Early on the morning of 11 January, helicopter-born US forces launched a surprise raid on a long-established Iranian liaison office in the city of Arbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. They captured five relatively junior Iranian officials whom the US accuses of being intelligence agents and still holds.

In reality the US attack had a far more ambitious objective, The Independent has learned. The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.

Interesting...

Somehow I doubt that. It wreaks of Dan Rather.

If that had happened the Iranians would have broadcast that all over the news, just like how the movie "300" is Holloywoods war on the Iranian people.

You all do realize this thread was posted as an April Fool's Day joke, right? If some how you missed the post saying that, just go back to the original post and read the red letters from top to bottom.

Excuse me? Did Bush really say this?
"If Iran thinks that it can defy the world without consequences, then it's sorely mistaken."

Like the Iraq invasion? :D :D :D :rolleyes:

Then again, maybe they can.

Maybe so but there can be truth in fiction.