UK sailors captured at gunpoint by Iranian Forces

[GinandTonic]

OK, sorry, I was in a bad mood this morning.

No worries

 

[Mr. Do]

There is a confession, but I don't necessarily put much stock in it. Your original "logic" did not provide for the alternative you now provide in your parathetical. It is not anti-American or butchery to assist you in showing where your logic was weak. Instead of thanking me, you bash me while at the same time correcting the hole in your logic that my post made obvious.

I hate to point out the blindingly obvious, but if my point was that Iran doesn't have evidence to prove to the captives (or anyone else), then by definition the "confessions" they gave were not genuine. I thought I didn't need to say that, but oh well, I'm not surprised.

Now we're done with holding your hand through some really simple logical thought which you clearly can't handle, so let's bury the hatchet (No, I'm not going to add a lame "IN YOUR SKULL!!!!" after that ), so why don't you just show you are a decent human being after all and state how you hope that these sailors and marines are returned home unharmed safely as soon as possible. You too Xenocrates, your hatred for the US doesn't extend to British soldiers as well does it?

 

[JollyRoger]

so why don't you just show you are a decent human being after all and state how you hope that these sailors and marines are returned home unharmed safely as soon as possible. You too Xenocrates, your hatred for the US doesn't extend to British soldiers as well does it?

I hope all of those that are wrongfully detained are returned. It's been less than a week for the Brits, somewhat longer for others.

 

[GinandTonic]

I hope all of those that are wrongfully detained are returned. It's been less than a week for the Brits, somewhat longer for others.

The Brits have not done the detaining. Irrelivant.

The US record on human rights has no relivance to Anglo-Iranian relations. China's human rights record has no relivance to Franco-Argentinian relations. Get a grip man.

 

[JollyRoger]

The Brits have not done the detaining. Irrelivant.

The US record on human rights has no relivance to Anglo-Iranian relations. China's human rights record has no relivance to Franco-Argentinian relations. Get a grip man.

The Brits are part of the coalition of the willing of which GITMO is a glaring eyesoar. The risks of being in such a coalition is that the actions of your coalition partners are imputed to you by your failure to guide your partner to take a more civilized stance.

 

[Mr. Do]

Ah, your response is fair this time Jolly Roger. I too am against the detainings in Guantanamo and Belmarsh, you have to have a lawful system to uphold the law, it should be obvious to all really shouldn't it? But never mind

 

[Winner]

Another day passed, another Iranian insults have been ignored, British humiliation continues.

Either you're saints or...

 

[theimmortal1]

GITMO is for prisoners of war. All is fair in war.

Iran would certainly be allowed to keep POWs if she was at war. Is she? If she is, then we might as well start bombing the **** out of her. If shes not at war, then how can you take prisoners?

 

[Lotus49]

Perhaps Iran doesn't have the help of another Superpower or two.

It's tough - but for the greater good, (IF things go off in such a way that we have the 'moral upper hand', and popular opinion) some kind of conflict with Iran... is something we've been waiting for the right opportunity to pounce upon since 1979. -Even being as 'spread thin' as we are (we may be a little extended in terms of sustained overseas deployments compared to normal Op Tempo, but in terms of "Short-term, Main Event, time to open the can of whup-@ss - a la 1991"..... we are not really 'spread thin' at all).

We could even invade Iran, with a ground attack, laying absolute waste to everything in sight. It just would be too costly/difficult to actually HOLD large portions of the country, for any real period of time worth mentioning. Counting their paramilitary manpower, Iran has THE largest number of men in uniform, in the world (12.3 million). Considering the terrain, and other 'circumstances' regarding this specific country, no occupation would be practical. But, if we *strongly* have the moral upper hand (i.e., they start it), then this could trigger our opportunity to effectively destroy the regime, and hopefully something better would rise in it's place (couldn't get much worse), but it wouldn't be us holding their hand like in Iraq - they'd have to do it.

Though, I think this was just the Iranian Rev. Guard acting on their own, and the gov't of Iran is trying to A) save face and flex their muscles a bit, but B) not let things go too far. So, there will probably be a reasonable outcome fairly soon. They don't want 'nona this', and they know it.

To be sure, if it does come to blows... the short answer is: "No, we haven't had enough of the Middle East yet - gimme another piece to chew on, let's see if we can take out the whole ancient Persian Empire". You bomb them at night, we'll take the day. Some good tag-team action, just like back in the WWII days. Ah, bombing is fun, isn't it. It's for the more civilized, such as ourselves.



/tongue-in-cheek


But, their nuclear ambitions will be stopped, one way or another, within the next 18 months to 2 years. I guarantee you the the highest levels of gov't, intel, and defense here in the U.S. are chomping at the bit right now, hoping things go our way with this little scenario. We'll just have to see how stupid Iranian leadership is...

However, I don't expect they are. It just all depends on Iranian internals. I.e., the power struggle between the Revolutionary Guard, and the more moderate political powers in the gov't. Though, I have no doubt they want to fight (...and die) - for pride. Hey... we're standing by...

 

[Xenocrates]

Here's a bit of incontravertible logic that even the stupidest person could understand:
Faye Turner and the others genuinely believed themselves to be in Iraq. They would have been the hardest people in the world to truly convince that they were in fact in Iran. Their freedom and their lives depend on it.

Therefore, for them to have confessed so quickly and readily and admit in front of the world on TV, the Iranians must have been able to show them the most compelling evidence in the world that they were in Iran.

Therefore, this evidence must be readily available and so convincing that even a quick look at it would make myself and everyone go, "OH! Of course, they were in Iran after all."

Iran has provided no such evidence, even in the face of British evidence that states the opposite.

QED.

The logic is that they weren't in Iran, therefore the confession is wrong. And because the confession is wrong, they couldn't have been in Iran. OK that's right up to the standard that I've come to expect.

After the Vincennes shot down the Iranian airliner in 1988 I'm sure there were people like you saying exactly the same thing.

Now it may be, on this ocasion that the British aren't lying, but it may also be that the haven't respected Iranian territory.

So what's with this lynch mob attitude?

 

[woody60707]

@ Xenocrates

Why do you keep bring up that Vincennes shot down the Iranian airliner? how did it matter at all if the ship was in Iran's waters or not? If it was found out they weren't in Iran's water, would that case be any different at all? They would still be just as wrong.

Also, that was the US, not the UK.

 

[GinandTonic]

The Brits are part of the coalition of the willing of which GITMO is a glaring eyesoar. The risks of being in such a coalition is that the actions of your coalition partners are imputed to you by your failure to guide your partner to take a more civilized stance.

The UK has condemed Gtmo, the Aterney General has called it illegial and the government and law lords have called for it to be closed. The handful detained in Belmarsh are not comparible to Gtmo - not that Im happy about either situation.

Similar to the situation with the Vincennes, the UK is the UK not the US.

Another day passed, another Iranian insults have been ignored, British humiliation continues.

Either you're saints or...

After the awful political, popular and legal mess of Iraq if we use force here we will do so with the backing of the security council - politically, morally and legally with the high ground.

Winner, this isnt about who can piss highest up the wall, this is firstly about getting our people back. After that we can look at putting Iran on the naughty step.

 

[nivi]

Seized sailor's release in doubt

They are playing with you, and nobody can beat Iran in it's own game. Now you see it, now you don't.

You gotta give them credit.

 

[Winner]

After the awful political, popular and legal mess of Iraq if we use force here we will do so with the backing of the security council - politically, morally and legally with the high ground.

Security council is useless, get over it. Russia or China will block any move against any rogue state.

Iran needs to be punished for this insolence. Give them 3 days to hand over your sailors, and if they fail to comply, arrest 10 times as much Iranians and hold them until they release them. If that doesn't work too, start throwing bombs at them.

If you let them make fun of you like this, you'll appear weak and stupid, it will just invite others to to the same - "just capture few of their troops and they'll do whatever you want"

Winner, this isnt about who can piss highest up the wall, this is firstly about getting our people back. After that we can look at putting Iran on the naughty step.

Whole country cannot be held hostage because 8 people in custody, no matter how cruel it sounds.

Israel started shooting after only 2 soldiers were captured. Yes, they risked their lives, but Hezbollah got hell of a pounding. If we didn't stop them, they'd continue.

Do you want to appear weak?

 

[GinandTonic]

The whole country isnt being held hostage. We have not altered our actions in Irans favor at all, quite the opposit.

Israil was condemed worldwide and its millitary venture didnt get its soldiers back. It spent a fortune, lost vast political capital, suffered casualties far in excess of the number of hostiges etc. Not an example I would look to follow.

China will abstain, Russia will try to moderate western action but we'll get them on board.

 

[skadistic]

The UN SecCon. Does not give legitamacy or moral high ground.

Israel failed because the great europowers would not allow it to succeed. Israel isn't allowed to fight back and defend itself from Iranian backed terrorists.

 

[Winner]

Israel failed because the great europowers would not allow it to succeed. Israel isn't allowed to fight back and defend itself from Iranian backed terrorists.

Not just europowers, even the US pressured Israel to stop.

 

[Mr. Do]

The logic is that they weren't in Iran, therefore the confession is wrong. And because the confession is wrong, they couldn't have been in Iran. OK that's right up to the standard that I've come to expect.

That is not even close to what I or anyone else has said. You really are reaching.

I hope you don't get your wish and that this is resolved speedily and peacefully, with none of the captives hurt or paraded around any more. Have you watched Faye Turner's "confession" yet? Did it make you feel all warm inside?

 

[nivi]

Unfortunatly the eurorpower thing is pretty bunk, and the US is even moreso, since they were the ones pushing for us to continue, untill they realised the whole efforts amount to nothing. Israel ignores the europowers whenever it wants too.

The fiasco was a combination of ignoring hizbulla for 6 years, while they build up thier arsenal fortification and manpower, a horrible use of force where it isn't suited-tanks make for awfully big targets, underestimating thier capabillities and bad intelligence-we didn't know they had Land-Sea missiles, which we should have becuase Iran has them, causing the ships gaurd to b down overestimating our airforce capabillities (great for destroying tanks, not so great for guerillas), overuse of ineffective artillery, negligence of human life-a commander wanted to get a picture of an israeli flag on a hill, men died for a goddamn picture (which realy isn't impressive, an army planting a flag on a hill, if it was the reverse then it would be something), stupidity-walking into a minefield (OURS!). I could go on...

And of course, and this failure is of this whole nation, appointing a prime minister only becuase he was riding the coat tails (sp?) of Sharon, which then appointed to defense minister an inexpirenced idiot becuase of political reasons, who has no idea of defense and pretty much all he is good for is orginizing strikes, and chief of staff who is an airforce man, who overestimated the airforce and underestimated the ground force.



/rant mode off

 

[Little Raven]

Props to nivi. That can't have been easy.

However, it was the truth. The idea that Israel was stopped in its war against Hezbollah is nonsense. Sure, the US eventually called for a ceasefire, but only after Ohmert all but got down on his knees and begged us to. Bush was desperate to see Israel crush Hezbollah, and was willing to extend Israel whatever it needed towards that goal. We gave them cover in the UN, clamped down on Syria as hard as we could, even rush-delivered more smart bombs when Israeli stocks ran a little low. Only after Israel made it perfectly clear it wasn't interested in winning did we (reluctantly) call for a ceasefire. We were NOT happy about how that dust-up ended, and the repercussions are still being felt.