Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mightytboy on March 23, 2007, 08:01:33 AM
-
Is Iran just trying to start a war?
Iran causing problems! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260583,00.html)
Wondering how the UK guys are taking this news.
-
Interesting. The german media told that this happened in iranian waters and not in iraqi waters.
Reminds me, when the USS Vincennes shot down the iranian civilian aircraft in 1988, killing 290 people including 66 children.
The media also reported that the Vincennes was in international waters when it was attacked by iranian gunboats.
Years later it came clear that the USS Vincennes was in iranian waters when this all happened.
But in one thing I can agree: There are indeed some people who would lke to see a war against Iran.
So lets see, if this will be a minor event - like in 2004 when british soldiers were captured in iranian territory and released a few days later or if this event escalates to a war.
EDIT: What the hell ist the "Arab" Gulf ????? Is this a new name for the Persian Gulf?
-
the brits wont do a damned thing. Iran will rub brit noses in persian dung then release them with a warning.
babek, you think that airbus shootdown was intentional?
-
No - I mean the reports of the ship-positions are similiar.
I really dont think that a military officer - especially from the USA - would intentionally give the order to shoot down a civilian aircraft.
I mean the reports in the media according the position of the ships.
In the Vincennes case first every media western reported it was in international waters.
Then decades later the truth was reported - when the case was long forgotten.
Now again it is reported that iranians were attacking a foreign ship outside iranian waters.
So I said that these actual reports reminded me of the vincennes reports.
-
If they were in Iran waters then I have no problem with them being detained but Iran made comments the other day that they were going to take prisoners because they said the US is holding Iranians in Iraq.
The two may not be related but I some how doubt it.
-
Originally posted by babek-
No - I mean the reports of the ship-positions are similiar.
I really dont think that a military officer - especially from the USA - would intentionally give the order to shoot down a civilian aircraft.
I mean the reports in the media according the position of the ships.
In the Vincennes case first every media western reported it was in international waters.
Then decades later the truth was reported - when the case was long forgotten.
Now again it is reported that iranians were attacking a foreign ship outside iranian waters.
So I said that these actual reports reminded me of the vincennes reports.
Had to emphasize the numbers of dead not to mention the numbers of children.
So it's " No I don't think was an intentional shooting. But the US is still the devil for dong it."
Pfft
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Had to emphasize the numbers of dead not to mention the numbers of children.
So it's " No I don't think was an intentional shooting. But the US is still the devil for dong it."
Pfft
Bronk
1. The US is not a devil (In fact there is nothing like a devil, because Frodo succesfully tossed the ring in the fire - so he died ;) )
2. And because so many people simply forgot the Vincennes case I mentioned the number of death and the unusual high percentage of death children, because I fear that some people could think it was a small plane with a crew of 4 people.
3. I still want to know what the ARAB gulf is ? Is this a new freedom fries campaign of renaming ?
-
Gulf of Tonkin
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
Is Iran just trying to start a war?
Yes
-
Originally posted by namvet
Gulf of Tonkin
Indeed; somehow the eeveel Boosh has made the Iranians take British military as prisoners so he can start another war!
-
War with Iran? Thats fine. With our 1950s technology M-16s, we will surely win.
-
do not fear a nuclear tipped Iran:
http://usawakeup.org/
Ah the power of propaganda :)
-
The interview with the Brit ship commander the inflatable was operating from indicated the boat was in Iraqi waters. I am curious where the Brits ship was so they couldn't see or react to this situation. Where was the inflatable operating from?? The ship Commander said they got the info from the helo that was covering the inflatable.
I am wondering why there is so little info from Iran over this. You'd think they'd be all over this for the propoganda.
-
Some you are worse than 'The Media' you are forever castigating, wanting a conflict no matter how silly the 'spark'. Grow up.
This is just an attention seeking gambit. They'll be released inside a week and that will be that.
-
The mullahs are the most corrupt beings in the world.
I also think (and hope) that the british soldiers will be released very soon.
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
they said the US is holding Iranians in Iraq.
If they have taken Iranian prisoners in iraq you can start to wonder what Iranians were doing in Iraqi in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Yes
source?
-
If I was the british admiral, I'd be embarassed. His boarding party allowed themselves to be taken without a fight.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If I was the british admiral, I'd be embarassed. His boarding party allowed themselves to be taken without a fight.
They obviously havent seen the film "300". Otherwise the millions of iranian ships would have been destroyed by the 300 british sailors in a battle of 3 days.
;)
-
Originally posted by babek-
They obviously havent seen the film "300". Otherwise the millions of iranian ships would have been destroyed by the 300 british sailors in a battle of 3 days.
;)
Hell yeah, I'd pay to see that movie.
Anyway, the spartans and other greeks weren't the only ones fighting the battle. There was a small (compared to the persian) naval group that took on the persian ships, and beat them.
-
You mean Salamis?
385 greek ships against 500 of the Iranian Empire, which were made of egypt, phoenician and greek subject ships ?
Sometimes I think that it is a big mistake to use egypts in naval battles.
Marcus Antonius had the same problem.
Its so difficult to find reliable and good servants in these days... *sigh* :)
-
Anyone else find it odd that the Cornwall was so far away from the boarding parties as to loose contact and be relying on visuals from a chopper?
I would expect my skipper to support a bit better.
shamus
-
Why? What's the point of having launches and smaller craft if you can't let them go over the horizon? Kind of limits your capabilities.
-
This sounds like a job for.......................... .......
bryan boitano!
-
Well it because it leads to this type of situation.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Anyone else find it odd that the Cornwall was so far away from the boarding parties as to loose contact and be relying on visuals from a chopper?
I would expect my skipper to support a bit better.
shamus
i was thinking the same thing.
british sailor:: " capt hornblower, there are hostile ships approaching our boarding party sir"
capt hornblower:: "put a warning shot across their bow"
-
It also means you cannot support your troops with either firepower or provide cover to recover them. It's pretty easy to out gun an inflatable boat with small gunboats. I suppose you could say it's like just sending them out in hostile territory and hoping that no "bad people" threaten or kill them before you can respond the next day.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If I was the british admiral, I'd be embarassed. His boarding party allowed themselves to be taken without a fight.
Because if they had resisted I'm sure they all would have been killed. Side arms don't match up well against multiple heavy caliber machine guns pointed at you and your little inflatible dingy.
ack-ack
-
But put those same sidearms in conjuntion with a frigate or destroyer in proximity to the boarding party and you have sometthing else entirely. Unless of course they turn over the frigate or destroyer to the iranian gun boats. Then again for that to happen it would have to be close by, perhaps on the same horizon and maybe the gun boats would not have even shown up at all knowing they couldn't bully a widdle inflatable putt putt AND it's mother ship.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Why? What's the point of having launches and smaller craft if you can't let them go over the horizon? Kind of limits your capabilities.
You aren't to keen.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
source?
my ears and eyes
-
Originally posted by Eagler
my ears and eyes
Aha!. You work inside Iran. Im sorry, but i didnt know that
Do you work in the embassy there, or more covertly?
-
Originally posted by babek- There are indeed some people who would lke to see a war against Iran.[/B]
If, and probably more "when" it comes, what a mess.
Ick,
hap
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the brits wont do a damned thing. Iran will rub brit noses in persian dung then release them with a warning.
babek, you think that airbus shootdown was intentional?
Is that what you really think? You couldn't be more wrong if ya tried.
What a slap in the face to serving and ex British soldiers (Like me)
-
Hawco, I thought we already had a discussion on your avatar :aok
Really, you could just replace "brits" with any of the western nations and you get the same truth out of it.
-
Remember nine one one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Aha!. You work inside Iran. Im sorry, but i didnt know that
Do you work in the embassy there, or more covertly?
no smarty pants, I do not work there - but you knew that
I hear and see the same as you and everyone else but unlike some (you) I do not blow off what the crazy leader of Iran spews everytime he gets a camera in front of his ugly mug.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Hawco, I thought we already had a discussion on your avatar :aok
Really, you could just replace "brits" with any of the western nations and you get the same truth out of it.
LOL, You know you are madly in love with my avatar:aok
-
Originally posted by Eagler
no smarty pants, I do not work there - but you knew that
I hear and see the same as you and everyone else but unlike some (you) I do not blow off what the crazy leader of Iran spews everytime he gets a camera in front of his ugly mug.
lol
waa waaa... the iranianians are comming :eek: :eek: :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol
waa waaa... the iranianians are comming :eek: :eek: :D
Maybe we should have the Norwegians give them a stern talking to?
-
Originally posted by Rino
Maybe we should have the Norwegians give them a stern talking to?
As an alternative to what? :D
-
Well, we could send Aylar over to have a little ... diplomatic session with Ahmadinejad. :D
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
War with Iran? Thats fine. With our 1950s technology M-16s, we will surely win.
M-16's started being issued in the 60's and have had many major improvments over the years that have made it a very reliable weapon. I'd rather have an M-16A2 than a 40's technology AK that can't hit the broadside of a barn beyond 150 meters.
The US would hand Iran it's bellybutton in a plastic bag if they came at us in a standup fight and Iran knows it. The Iranian military is a joke. They are poorly trained, poorly, led, and poorly equiped. They wouldn't stand a chance.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Well, we could send Aylar over to have a little ... diplomatic session with Ahmadinejad. :D
ugh.. poor Ahmamanamamana whatever :rofl
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
If they have taken Iranian prisoners in iraq you can start to wonder what Iranians were doing in Iraqi in the first place.
YA!
Don't they know that this is American Territory now???
-
Originally posted by babek-
But in one thing I can agree: There are indeed some people who would lke to see a war against Iran.
Yes there are indeed. Many of them seem to be Iranians.
-
Lets liberate Iran.
And Hornet33, there are weapons out now that are really quite amazing. I personally like the Russian assault rifle that can fire two rounds out of the barrel before the recoil gets to the shooter.
Or for pure tissue damage, how about replacing the aging m16 with some of the flechette firing rifles designed in the 1990s. Those things were brutal.
I even think the M-14 is still a better rifle than the M-16a2. Todays soldier is bigger than his 1950s counterpart (my grandfather wore a size 7 boot in the army during WW2, I wear a size 13). Thusly, from a physical standpoint alone, our soldiers would be more capable to fire a fully automatic 7.62mm rifle.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Thusly, from a physical standpoint alone, our soldiers would be more capable to fire a fully automatic 7.62mm rifle.
We have the 7.62mm as standard caliber and that should not be a problem for you guys either.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
And Hornet33, there are weapons out now that are really quite amazing. I personally like the Russian assault rifle that can fire two rounds out of the barrel before the recoil gets to the shooter.
Oh yeah! The AN - 94 "Abakan". Amazing weapon; departs a bit from the 'simple is better' rule used for decades by the Soviets, but they really came out with a nifty battle rifle for their version of the OICW project.
I really liked the Austrian's Flechette rifle:
(http://www.remtek.com/arms/steyr/acr/acr.jpg)
(http://www.steyr-aug.com/acr1page3.jpg)
http://www.steyr-aug.com/acr2002.htm
I want one!!
-
those soldiers were captured in contested waters, some say it belongs to Iran and others say Iraq...hence Iran thinking they had rights to size the ship and its occupents...
Iran gettin even for the embargo set on them...tit for tat some might say
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol
waa waaa... the iranianians are comming :eek: :eek: :D
Thats all you could muster?
-
The U.K will do nothing, the west is weak.
I am scheduling a circumcision next week and have started studying the Koran.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Thats all you could muster?
lol yup :)
not much more to say really
-
If there is a war in Iran there will most likely need to be a draft considering how our military is overextended in Afghanistan and our illegitimate war in Iraq. I'm under 25 and am at risk to being drafted. Not in my name I say. If Bush and Co want to go to Iran I say all those who voted for him should go fight rather than our nations youth. Unless you think we're actually making the world safer by occupying Iraq and removing their "weapons of destruction." lol
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol yup :)
not much more to say really
Word
opps wrong thread.
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by Soviet
If there is a war in Iran there will most likely need to be a draft considering how our military is overextended in Afghanistan and our illegitimate war in Iraq. I'm under 25 and am at risk to being drafted. Not in my name I say. If Bush and Co want to go to Iran I say all those who voted for him should go fight rather than our nations youth. Unless you think we're actually making the world safer by occupying Iraq and removing their "weapons of destruction." lol
You can just make it easy on yourself and move to Canada.
-
So by disagreeing I must leave the country I was born in and love? That's bullcrap. I would gladly fight for my country just not in an illegitimate war. How did Iraq pose a threat at all to the United States? If anything our war in Iraq has potentially started Iran's pursuit of the bomb. If a foreign power was rolling tanks through my town I'd probably be among the first to pick up a weapon and fight but I will not fight in America's vietnam for the 21st century.
If you support this war so much I hope you've already fought a tour over in Iraq as it's easy to say you support something and a totally different matter to put your life on the line to support it. I'm not convinced Iraq and Iran pose such a serious threat that any more Americans should put their lives on the line. If anything we've created more of a threat by invading Iraq than was there before we invaded.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
So by disagreeing I must leave the country I was born in and love? That's bullcrap. I would gladly fight for my country just not in an illegitimate war. How did Iraq pose a threat at all to the United States? If anything our war in Iraq has potentially started Iran's pursuit of the bomb. If a foreign power was rolling tanks through my town I'd probably be among the first to pick up a weapon and fight but I will not fight in America's vietnam for the 21st century.
If you support this war so much I hope you've already fought a tour over in Iraq as it's easy to say you support something and a totally different matter to put your life on the line to support it. I'm not convinced Iraq and Iran pose such a serious threat that any more Americans should put their lives on the line. If anything we've created more of a threat by invading Iraq than was there before we invaded.
I signed the SAME Selective Service card that you have. You cannot "choose" which war is "illegitimate" if drafted. You signed it, bottom line. If you are still "questioning the war" than yeah, move elsewhere.
I never "said I support a war". If I was ever drafted (past or present), I'd do my part. Those are two totally different things.
-
Just because I signed a selective service card doesn't mean jack, I was forced to sign that card otherwise there would be serious penalties. I find it kind of funny that we can live in a democracy yet still be forced to pick up a weapon and fight for whatever wars our elected officials deem worthy to fight. In vietnam the true patriots weren't those who just went along with the draft but those burned their cards.
I have the courage to stand up for what I believe is wrong. I don't care if I get thrown in jail for it.
-
(http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg)
You were more likely to be murdered in New Orleass last year than you were in all of Iraq. I don't see people like Soviet willing to go to jail in protest of the high murder rate in LA. Where is your outrage about Geary Indianna in 2005? Where are the protests? Where is the incessant media coverage?
Oh that's right, it wouldn't fit into their "political adgenda". (Sigh)
It's an HONOR to serve your country. No, you don't get to pick which war to serve in. Quit buying into all the B.S. hype you read about the Iraq war.
You are less likely to get murdered in Baghdad than in many cities in the U.S.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
It's an HONOR to serve your country. No, you don't get to pick which war to serve in. Quit buying into all the B.S. hype you read about the Iraq war.
Amen Lute.
-
It's not that I don't want to go to Iraq because I'm afraid to die there. It's because I don't want to risk my life for an unjust cause. Iraq never posed a threat to the United States. In fact there's probably a greater threat in Iraq now because of all the insurgents that entered the country after the war began. In a recent poll most Iraqis feel life is even worse off now than with Saddam. Simple fact is Iraq is a massive failure that has cost us billions of dollars and thousands of American lives that did not need to be expended.
I'm not going to spew garbage about "a war for oil" or anything else some might say. The fact of the matter is we were lied to. We were told that Saddam Hussein posessed weapons of mass destruction and that there was surefire intelligence that certified this. We were told that Iraq needed to be invaded to prevent these weapons from being used against the United States. This proved to be completly untrue. Nevermind the fact that we went to Iraq without the initial approval of congress. If our leaders felt so certain that Iraq was a nation we needed to fight then why did they not approach congress first for approval? Now we're left with a burden. With the removal of Saddam Hussein has been left a huge power vacuum which has still not been filled. We're damned whether we leave Iraq or stay further.
Is it an honor to serve your country? Absolutly. I, however, fail to see how taking part in a war which was a complete lie has the same honor as defending your country from an actual threat.
I ask all of you with children between the ages of 18 and 25. Would you want your son or daughter to risk their lives in Iraq or Iran?
-
Originally posted by Soviet
Just because I signed a selective service card doesn't mean jack, I was forced to sign that card otherwise there would be serious penalties.
You say you were forced to sign the card otherwise there would be serious penalties. Then you say you have the courage to stand up for what you believe is wrong even if you have to go to jail......... If that was the case you would not have signed up for selective service in the first place.
Seems your just spewing bulls**t. Plus to say that the guys that fought in Vietnam were not the real patriots, but the guys that burned their draft cards were? You're priceless.
If the draft comes you're in a jam. You don't have the guts to go, and you don't have the guts not to go. You hit the nail on the head when you said signing a selective service card didn't mean jack. Doesn't sound like anything means jack to you.
-
It's because I don't want to risk my life for an unjust cause.
====
If you think its unjust and dont want to be drafted, your either going to:
1) Get Drafted
2) Go to Prison
3) Go to Canada
In your case I doubt if its going to be 1) or 2) for you. You definitely sound like a runner to me. Not that being a "runner" is a bad thing....imagine a giant bunny rabbit coming at you....what are you going to do? Stand there and get cotton balled to death?
-
Well, apparently Blair is denying the British troops were actually in Iranian waters...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/25/iran.uk.sailors.ap/index.html
Seems to me this may result ina bit more than the British ignoring it.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
It's not that I don't want to go to Iraq because I'm afraid to die there.
oh bull crappy, you could be a conscious objector and save lives by being a medic, you don't fool anyone , your a coward, run away to Canada.
oh, BTW there is no draft,so your safe, but some democrats want to reinstate the draft.
-
Thanks for the personal insults. I really appreciate them. I guess being able to disagree is no longer American. That I should bend over and let those in Washington send me where they so desire.
-
Soviet,
You say you are conmcerned about the draft. Please get a clue. As a 25 year old you are far from likely to get drafted, even if the draft were active right this month. They draft from a pool of 18 year olds, if by some fluke they needed more manpower than that age, they'd go for the 19 year olds and so on. In spite of all that, there would be a lottery drawing for the birth dates drafted to serve. Don't worry, you won't be required to serve your country, you can just enjoy the security of living here that someone else provided for you.
If there was going to be a draft, Congress would have to reset the manpower limits higher than they are currently at. The Military is at the number of men now because there are only so many allowed on active duty.
Had you really wanted to serve your country you would have already enlisted or joined earlier, prior to the current conflict so please keep your prortestations about serving to yourself. Your window of oportunity to serve started 7 years ago (assuming you are not lying about being 25) and your enlistment could have been long over before the current conflict started. You seem to have had no interest, willingness or inclination to put your pasty butt on the line for it, so don't start with the summer patriot act now.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Soviet,
You say you are conmcerned about the draft. Please get a clue. As a 25 year old you are far from likely to get drafted, even if the draft were active right this month. They draft from a pool of 18 year olds, if by some fluke they needed more manpower than that age, they'd go for the 19 year olds and so on. In spite of all that, there would be a lottery drawing for the birth dates drafted to serve. Don't worry, you won't be required to serve your country, you can just enjoy the security of living here that someone else provided for you.
If there was going to be a draft, Congress would have to reset the manpower limits higher than they are currently at. The Military is at the number of men now because there are only so many allowed on active duty.
Had you really wanted to serve your country you would have already enlisted or joined earlier, prior to the current conflict so please keep your prortestations about serving to yourself. Your window of oportunity to serve started 7 years ago (assuming you are not lying about being 25) and your enlistment could have been long over before the current conflict started. You seem to have had no interest, willingness or inclination to put your pasty butt on the line for it, so don't start with the summer patriot act now.
What he said.
Bronk
-
Again misquoting me. I never said I have no desire to serve my country. I have no desire to serve it in these unjust wars. Spare me the "you can just enjoy the security of living here that someone else provided for you." I fail to see how the Iraq war is giving us freedom and security. Those two things we already had and were not in danger.
Furthermore how am I not serving my country by not enlisting in the military. There are plenty of other roles this nation needs. Instead of enlisting I pursued my BBA in Finance and am soon to go back to school to pursue my MBA. If my nation truly needed me then of course I'd serve but I fail to see how my country NEEDS me in a conflict which poses no threat to the US.
-
My oldest will be 15 next month. In 3 years if they choose to join the military I would support them 110%.
Of COURSE Iraq had WMD's. Hell, we sold them to 'em. (duh)
At this point, debatin' the pro's and con's of us going to war in Iraq is pretty much moot. It's NOW a matter of finishing what we started.
Remember at the start of the Iraq war all of the Anti-US people around the world that said the US has no resolve and if you bloody their nose they'll turn tail and run.
It SUCKS that so many people in this country want to prove that to be true.
The animals we are at war with (I say animals because people wouldn't put children in a car loaded with explosives and then blow the kids up in it) would consider us withdrawing as a victory, and they'll be on us like a pack of wild dogs.
It is a question of resolve. Do we have the "will" to finish what we started or not.
If we don't fight the war in Iraq, it will be fought in the West. I GUESS you are "ok" with them blowin' crap up in the States then? We show them weakness and take away the battleground in Iraq they'll bring the fight to us here in the United States.
I would have thought that would be obvious.
Keep the war in Iraq and off OUR streets. The fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq keeps the focus THERE as opposed to HERE. Plus it puts us in a position where we get to kill the bastages by the droves.
Freedom, and our way of life here in the United States isn't easy. Not sure what made you think it was. If you are asked to step up and fight for this great nation it saddens me that you won't. It shows great lack of character and the attitude of a spoiled child.
(edit: reading your last reply... It's not UP to you WHAT war you get to serve in. It IS up to you to honor your country by serving)
-
Soviet,
Dissent is decidedly all-american... However, to say that you would dodge your obligation to your country and as a man just because you disagree with the course of action deemed necessary by your lawfully elected officials IS anti-american.
Iran, and indeed Muslim extremists have been waging war against the west since 1979. The problem is, we have only recently started fighting back. Iran has been a MAJOR supplier of bullets and butts to carry out all of these things.
Here is a PARTIAL list of action against the US since 1979:
*** In 1979,the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over
*** During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon
*** In 1981, Pope John Paul II was shot 4 times in an assasination attempt
*** In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up
*** In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard
*** In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered
*** In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed
*** In 1993 Mir Amal Kansi, an islamic radical from Pakistan murdered 2 CIA agents about to make a turn into CIA HQ in Langley, VA.
*** In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time
*** In 1996 19 Americans were killed and hundreds more woulded at
the U.S. Military complex at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia
*** In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed
*** In 2000, The USS Cole was attacked and more than 15 American Sailors were killed
*** On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed
*** In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered
*** On July 4th 2002, 2 Innocent Airline Passengers Were Killed, And 3 Others Injured at the ticket counter of El Al Airlines in the LAX International terminal
*** On October 12th 2002 more than 200 innocent civilians (including 200 Australians and 5 Americans) were brutally murdered
We are finally fighting back... if anything, we need to be far more fierce than we have been thus far.
They did this regardless of whatever party held the WhiteHouse or Congress at the time. Soviet... It doesn't even matter what you think of them or this war, They want to kill YOU or your family - regardless of age, race, religion or political affiliation and they are more than happy to end their own life in the process... THAT is what we are dealing with.
ALL the best to England and her captive sailors and Marines in the hands of the Iranians at this time.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
Just because I signed a selective service card doesn't mean jack, I was forced to sign that card otherwise there would be serious penalties. I find it kind of funny that we can live in a democracy yet still be forced to pick up a weapon and fight for whatever wars our elected officials deem worthy to fight. In vietnam the true patriots weren't those who just went along with the draft but those burned their cards.
I have the courage to stand up for what I believe is wrong. I don't care if I get thrown in jail for it.
Since you seem to think I had quoted you earlier, I 'll just take this post and quote it to show you the difference. I did not quote you saying you had no desire to serve, I merely pointed out that your posts and actions indicated that since your window to serve started 7 years ago, long before this so called unjust war you prattle about was innitiated. It's not any "unjust war" keeping you from serving, it's your lack of desire to serve. You could hav e served as I said earlier. long before this conflict was started and Bush was even President.
First point, yes you were required to register for the draft. Fact is, no one forced you to do so unless you claim they held a gun on you to sign it. You could have stood for your "feelings or thoughts" and ignored it and accepted the penalties as your actions demonstrated your civil disobediance.
You do not live in a Democracy, you live in a Republic with democratic ideals.
You were not forced to pick up a weapon. You were not forced to even look at one. You were not forced into uniform or to serve either much less fight.
Please don't think the country needs you or your MBA. There are plenty of MBA folks so you are hardly a critical item for the needs of the country.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
Thanks for the personal insults. I really appreciate them. I guess being able to disagree is no longer American.
Take heart. "Here" is not everywhere.
Regards,
hap
-
Soviet,
Disagreeing with another's opinion is absolutely right.
Standing around calling the war unjust is another. It seems that in 2003 congress authorised force. That same congress is now debating retracting that authorisation. They have yet to pass decisive legislation (other than erosion of support) that has retracted that initial decision. If that point comes to pass, then the war can be considered questionable.
Stop reading liberal drivel, and expand your horizons.
-
Chit!!!!
We can pick and choose? Noooo you mean I spent 20 Years of my life and had a chance to pick and choose?
I demand a do over....NOT!!!!
Proudly Served my Country.... America.
GOD Bless her.
:aok
Mac
'75 ~ '95 US Army
-
Originally posted by Yeager
It's because I don't want to risk my life for an unjust cause.
====
If you think its unjust and dont want to be drafted, your either going to:
1) Get Drafted
2) Go to Prison
3) Go to Canada
In your case I doubt if its going to be 1) or 2) for you. You definitely sound like a runner to me. Not that being a "runner" is a bad thing....imagine a giant bunny rabbit coming at you....what are you going to do? Stand there and get cotton balled to death?
You forgot option number four. The option on which this country was founded.
-
guess its one thing to serve his country and be proud,
another thing is to be blind and fight a just plain wrong war?
All this hate & death wishes, i see more bloody noses coming...
-
Don't become obsessed with the draft. Focus your energies on a fantasy that's more likely to come about such as winning the lottery powerball.
-
iran, rekindling the memories of mossadeq would have the mullahs running scared.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
All this hate & death wishes, i see more bloody noses coming...
Who said they hated anybody? Who has a death wish?
-
I ask all of you with children between the ages of 18 and 25. Would you want your son or daughter to risk their lives in Iraq or Iran?
My son is on his second 1 year tour in Iraq. 'Nuff said.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I ask all of you with children between the ages of 18 and 25. Would you want your son or daughter to risk their lives in Iraq or Iran?
there are no "children" aged 18 to 25, we call them men and women.
-
You forgot option number four. The option on which this country was founded.
====
nope, the only other option that I could have possibly disregarded was the option to flee to mexico. Actually a better option than mexico if you discount amylee.com
-
Originally posted by Yeager
It's because I don't want to risk my life for an unjust cause.
====
If you think its unjust and dont want to be drafted, your either going to:
3) Go to Canada
?
Not on option anymore
Last year, was a lot of talk pro and contra in news here in Toronto, about this matter, but not like in Vietnam war time, looks like Washington and Ottawa has a deal
Canada denies refugee status to American soldier (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-24-canada-war_x.htm?csp=36)
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
guess its one thing to serve his country and be proud,
another thing is to be blind and fight a just plain wrong war?
All this hate & death wishes, i see more bloody noses coming...
Well, we could always play blind and just ignore the whole thing...
seems to me I have heard of another country doing this... :rolleyes:
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Neville_Chamberlain2.jpg)
:noid :noid
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/Neville_Chamberlain2.jpg)
"mister hitler has assured me that he will not invade any more countries, we will have peace in our time."
-
I wasn't talking about Hitler... more along the lines of ignore the brutal dictatorship as long as we can send him arms covertly in exchange for oil....
-
I wasn't talking about Hitler... more along the lines of ignore the brutal dictatorship as long as we can send him arms covertly in exchange for oil....
You mean like how the US and the rest of the West did in the 1980s? Good point.
-
No Dowding, more along the lines of how France, Germany, and Russia continued to ship arms to Iraq even after a UN arms embargo was in place. That in and of it self was criminal and resulted in casualties for coalition forces during this current conflict there.
It's ok though for you right, I am sure not to many Brits were killed by the actions of your Euro friends... :rolleyes:
-
Dowding has a point. Everyone was guilty of riding that gravy train back then. It's no secret. I suppose nowadays it's been made legal by replacing the leadership that made it so scandalous, which in and of itself is of course scandalous. It's politics in action, and it would make a great comedy film.
Bodhi, that accusation you're making needs some reference.
-
If you need a linky to that VOR, you must have had your head buried in the sand the past few years.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Bodhi, that accusation you're making needs some reference.
Where in the hell have you been? Oil-for-Food needs no link, the three countries have businesses that ADMITTED to "the accusation".
-
"What does appear clear is that the major source of external financial resources to the Iraqi Regime resulted from sanctions violations outside the Programme's framework. These illicit sales, usually referred to as 'smuggling,' began years before the Program started. Exports of Iraqi oil to both Jordan and Turkey and imports form those countries generally took place within the terms of trade agreements ('protocols') negotiated with Iraq. The existence, but not necessarily the amounts, of sales and purchases under these protocols was brought to the attention of the 661 Committee and at least in the case of Jordan, it was 'noted.' United States law requires that assistance programs to countries in violation of United Nations sanctions be ended unless continuation is determined to be in the national interest. Such determinations were provided by successive United States administrations for both Jordan and Turkey. In the later stages of the Programme, substantial Iraqi sales of oil were made to Syria and small sales to Egypt under similar 'protocols.'"
-Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker
"It is clear that the whole world, including the United States, knew about Iraq's oil sales to Turkey, Jordan and Syria. In the case of the United States, we not only knew about the oil sales, we actively stopped the United Nations Iraq Sanctions Committee, known as the 661 Committee, from acting to stop those sales…Hundreds of millions of dollars went into the pockets of Saddam Hussein as a result."
-Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) during a February 15, 2005 Hearing of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations into Oil-for-Food Program allegations.
Furthermore, the responsibility for preventing illegal oil trades did not belong to the UN. The UN Office of the Iraq Program, which administered OFFP, had neither the authority nor the resources to prevent smuggling. Patrick Kennedy, Ambassador to the UN for Management and Reform at the U.S. Mission to the UN, testified to this recently, stating that "Oil flowing out of Iraq through other means - smuggling, trade protocols and the voucher system - was outside the mandate of the UN Secretariat." During the same hearing, in response to questioning by Senator Levin, Kennedy also testified that the U.S. was aware of the oil sales with Jordan and Turkey ("…the sales - the trade - was going on and we were aware of it.").
The task of policing oil smuggling fell to the Multinational Interception Force (MIF), led by the Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy. The coalition making up MIF was initiated following the inception of the sanctions in 1990. The objective remained the same throughout its existence - to halt violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 661 and 665.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
Again misquoting me. I never said I have no desire to serve my country. I have no desire to serve it in these unjust wars. Spare me the "you can just enjoy the security of living here that someone else provided for you." I fail to see how the Iraq war is giving us freedom and security. Those two things we already had and were not in danger.
Furthermore how am I not serving my country by not enlisting in the military. There are plenty of other roles this nation needs. Instead of enlisting I pursued my BBA in Finance and am soon to go back to school to pursue my MBA. If my nation truly needed me then of course I'd serve but I fail to see how my country NEEDS me in a conflict which poses no threat to the US.
Hey Soviet
The biggest thing you can do in your life is serve your country, you'll meet friends and have brothers for the rest of your life, sure, guys like me often look back and wish I had dated chicks while being in college etc and driving them to live concerts in fancy cars, but I didn't, I (and thousands of others) served the country, good or bad, I done it, I'm dammned proud of that, even though it mean't I missed out on all the fun stuff that 18-25 years olds do. Wars come and go, historians tell us what was a good one or bad one, but only a select few ever experience one, be one of them Soviet and be proud of it too.
-
I also don't like the way a lot of guys on here try and politize these things, if your country goes to war, ANY war, then the first thing you should do is get your prettythang down to the recruiting office and fight for your gawd dammned country, I mean christ, there's no other option but to is there?
Doesn't matter what the war is or what the UN/ Middle East or whoever says, when yer country comes calling, you better listen and get in the fight.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You forgot option number four. The option on which this country was founded.
====
nope, the only other option that I could have possibly disregarded was the option to flee to mexico. Actually a better option than mexico if you discount amylee.com
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
10 points if you can name what I quoted from.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
If you need a linky to that VOR, you must have had your head buried in the sand the past few years.
Actually, I have had my head (and the rest of my body) in the sand over the past few years. Perhaps you could fill me in? I'm interested in French, German and Russian weapon systems shipped to Iraq during the embargo that you mentioned in your post above.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Where in the hell have you been? Oil-for-Food needs no link, the three countries have businesses that ADMITTED to "the accusation".
I'm aware of some shifty record-keeping and the like during the program. Nothing new and not a surprise. What I'd like to know about are French, German and Russian weapon systems being sold/shipped/smuggled during the embargo. Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
I also don't like the way a lot of guys on here try and politize these things, if your country goes to war, ANY war, then the first thing you should do is get your prettythang down to the recruiting office and fight for your gawd dammned country, I mean christ, there's no other option but to is there?
Doesn't matter what the war is or what the UN/ Middle East or whoever says, when yer country comes calling, you better listen and get in the fight.
Maybe you should have went to college. You sound like a brain-washed war machine. I'll take a pencil and paper over killing any day.
-
Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the british response has been week, especially today. They now have the families out begging for release?
Me? I would have promised to nuke Tehran if the sailors weren't released in a week.
Any official response from then on would just be the time left til the nuke fell, nothing more.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Maybe you should have went to college. You sound like a brain-washed war machine. I'll take a pencil and paper over killing any day.
Thank God you are a buffoon and not the President. It's also comforting you support your US Armed Forces Veterans.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
If you need a linky to that VOR, you must have had your head buried in the sand the past few years.
Roland sam system for a start, came across a wrecked system at a base called H2, that's a FRENCH system.
Knew it was a roland as the intel guy (or whatever he was) told us.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Maybe you should have went to college. You sound like a brain-washed war machine. I'll take a pencil and paper over killing any day.
Sometimes the pencil and paper do not keep the enemy at bay. From time to time you have to have soldiers go and actually kill them instead of sending diplomats to negotiate with them.
I'd prefer the pencil and paper but I'll support any man or woman that stands on the wall and fights the fight.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the british response has been week, especially today. They now have the families out begging for release?
Me? I would have promised to nuke Tehran if the sailors weren't released in a week.
Any official response from then on would just be the time left til the nuke fell, nothing more.
tell me you're not serious
-
I'm always serious.
-
Then all I can say is I disagree with your position sir and would hope that you reconsider it.
-
I'm coming to the realization that the only thing the muslims understand is punitive action.
The liberal / ***** way of whining and throwing sanctions their way has done nothing.
We need to wipe an entire city off the face of the map for them to understand what deep **** they are in if they **** with us.
Japan understands.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Roland sam system for a start, came across a wrecked system at a base called H2, that's a FRENCH system.
Knew it was a roland as the intel guy (or whatever he was) told us.
That's great, but that item was in Uncle Saddam's inventory before GW1. Do you have anything besides (whatever he was) told you? I'm looking for something (and someone) credible.
-
Well I'm all for strong military response and not p@##yfooting around about things but I'm not necessarily for using WMD's unless it's in response to the same or a preventative measure against an attack by the same.
I don't like the way things are going in Iraq / Iran. I think we're worried way too much about world opinion and we're endangering, harming, and disrespecting, good men and women who are over there serving their country(s) instead of just kicking the crap out of everybody that might be an insurgent. I don't think we're doing enough for them when they return home with issues they can't deal with or lifelong physical wounds.
But you'd have to make a really really good case to me to make me agree that killing a half a million people 90% of which really only had the misfortune to be born where they did is a good idea.
-
It's not like we'd surprise them with it.
I would have told them exactly when it would happen. If they are not smart enough to leave, or possibly rectify the situation themselves, what loss is it to us?
-
Originally posted by VOR
That's great, but that item was in Uncle Saddam's inventory before GW1. Do you have anything besides (whatever he was) told you? I'm looking for something (and someone) credible.
Don't know what to tell you to be honest, saw the thing with my own eyes.
Apart from that the only other thing I can say is that I have some left overs from a russian made sagger that I had a close brush with. My physical apperance can confirm that credible fact.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Maybe you should have went to college. You sound like a brain-washed war machine. I'll take a pencil and paper over killing any day.
That's not very nice lol
I was a young kid who needed a job, my folks couldnak afford to have 2 of us at college so I signed up. Not brain washed or anbything, just think when your country goes to war then you should too, to much passing the buck, just pick up your load and your weapon and get stuck into them.not any ***** footing around, we should have finished that tinpot country the first time in 91, wouldn't have all this trouble now.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Don't know what to tell you to be honest, saw the thing with my own eyes.
Apart from that the only other thing I can say is that I have some left overs from a russian made sagger that I had a close brush with. My physical apperance can confirm that credible fact.
It's totally groovy about you seeing it, but it doesn't address my question which I don't feel like repeating. As for your physical condition, that's your business.
Thanks anyway.
-
Originally posted by VOR
It's totally groovy about you seeing it, but it doesn't address my question which I don't feel like repeating. As for your physical condition, that's your business.
Thanks anyway.
Thanks for what ?
-
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Exactly.
Zen philiosophy has never been my strong point.
-
Originally posted by Dichotomy
tell me you're not serious
It's known as the Napoleon complex. He feels weak and unimportant and is compensating by playing the warlord.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Don't know what to tell you to be honest, saw the thing with my own eyes.
Apart from that the only other thing I can say is that I have some left overs from a russian made sagger that I had a close brush with. My physical apperance can confirm that credible fact.
You saw a French-German weapon system that has been in production since the 1970's and is widely exported and was in use by Iraq long before the war ... and you take this as proof that the French were selling weapons to Iraq during the embargo? And the AT-3 Sagger is a 1960's era weapon. Deductive reasoning seems not to be your strongest suit sir.
-
Someone is making noise in responsse? (http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=6283913&nav=2FH5)
-
Yeah! Let that be a lesson to them!
-
Originally posted by Viking
It's known as the Napoleon complex. He feels weak and unimportant and is compensating by playing the warlord.
:rofl I found out an interesting fact the other day. Napolean was taller then most frenchmen. He was actually rather tall for that day.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You saw a French-German weapon system that has been in production since the 1970's and is widely exported and was in use by Iraq long before the war ... and you take this as proof that the French were selling weapons to Iraq during the embargo? And the AT-3 Sagger is a 1960's era weapon. Deductive reasoning seems not to be your strongest suit sir.
Looks like I got the wrong end of the stick, didn't know we were talking about Iraq post 91, thought we were talking about what sort of weapons they had.
Sagger might be a 60's era weapon, but one day you should get on the wrong end of one and you'll find out that they work just fine.
Forgive my ignorance here, but what does deductive reasoning mean? Not being funny or a smart prettythang, just don't know what it means.
-
Observance of an event occurring on a repeated basis that leads one to believe that a certain probability is attached to the occurrence of that event. For example, if there are a red ball and a blue ball in a bag, and each color ball is drawn one-half of the time, we come to believe that each color ball has a one-half probability of being drawn at any one time.
deductive reasoning (http://www.answers.com/topic/deductive-reasoning-1)
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
deductive reasoning (http://www.answers.com/topic/deductive-reasoning-1)
Cleared that one up then lol
-
Do you guys see an happy ending to this british sailors arest crissis?
Watching them last evening on Tv, i see the same tactic used by dirty terorist groups in middle east, now is used by a govermet of a country with 70 milion peoples, humiliate them on TV, in front of the world to achive politic or financiar goal,
imop,the British reaction was weak, in the last days, and the US noninvolvement look like a suspicious, abandon of the only nation that seriously helped that war
-
it's too obvious, Iran is holding them hostage to have the sanctions against Iran eliminated.
as far as US involvment, the democratic congress is calling for bush to start withdrawing troops from Iraq in four months or they will cut off funding for the troops now. Hard to get involved when you are running away.
-
MOD proved that it was Iraqi waters...
http://www.mod.uk
(http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DB42AC92-E1CC-4478-9910-B8CB299A6612/0/HeloGPS.jpg)
(http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/09D090E9-66DD-4951-9774-AC88983AF4CD/0/Slide2.JPG)
The Iranians first report stated that they also agreed it was in Iraqi waters, but then corrected themselves and said it was in Iranian waters.
Iranian demonstrators are now asking for the British to be executed.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1258238,00.html
-
Clearly photoshopped by the eevEEEL UK MOD.
Allah knows the infidels were in sacred Iranian waters.
-
Originally posted by ghi
imop,the British reaction was weak, in the last days, and the US noninvolvement look like a suspicious, abandon of the only nation that seriously helped that war
Not a lot that can be done at the moment. It is not a weak reaction, the British are doing as much politically as they can i think.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1258201,00.html
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Looks like I got the wrong end of the stick, didn't know we were talking about Iraq post 91, thought we were talking about what sort of weapons they had.
Sagger might be a 60's era weapon, but one day you should get on the wrong end of one and you'll find out that they work just fine.
We were talking about the French allegedly selling Iraq weapons in violation of the UN embargo. Prior to 1991 it was perfectly legal for anyone to sell weapons to Iraq. Sorry to hear about your close call with the Sagger. Glad you made it.
-
If old Teflon Tony had any sense, he would have the boys all ready to go in there, wouldn't suprise me one bit if they haven't got enough intel gathered already to and get them, in fact they probably have been practising this Just waiting for the order.
there'sprobably a small team already in place doing a close target recconisance already.
-
They are in the middle of Tehran.
No chance of getting them out with a small team.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
If old Teflon Tony had any sense, he would have the boys all ready to go in there, wouldn't suprise me one bit if they haven't got enough intel gathered already to and get them, in fact they probably have been practising this Just waiting for the order.
there'sprobably a small team already in place doing a close target recconisance already.
Hawco,
Let's recast things a bit. Pretend that for some reason the US nicked 15 British sailors. Well, we know the English will want their sailors back. Let's say, for right now, we're not going to give them back.
So we've got them tucked away under guard.
Also, pretend you're the boss of the operation and have all the resources England has to offer to help you rescue the sailors. I'm sure you see where this is going. Just how do you pull it off?
What would we do if some nation "invaded" us and rescued their soldiers?
And if you like, forget the US make believe snatch of the sailors. Stick with Iran.
To take them was an act of war, to rescue them will be an act of war. Granted in either case it would not be equilivent to leveling major cities and/or rolling tanks across a border like a blitz. But in some fashion, respecting national boundries in both cases goes by the wayside.
I don't know but that we watch too many movies where we "go get our guys." Entebbe springs to mind and not much else. I'm sure someone will fill in the blanks of my faulty memory. And Grenada just doesn't count as an apt comparision.
I was in Washington DC in 1980 when Iran released the US hostages just minutes, hours, days before Regan took office with Alexander Haig as Sect'y of Defense. I've forgotten the timeframe exactly. I chalked it up to my guess that Iran didn't want to mess with General Haig. I've no proof of that. But that's how it seemed to me at the time. Though I have no way of knowing if it be so, or if other methods the Carter administration had employed paid off. And yes, I remember the botched rescue attempt too.
As to the comment, not just here, that the British response was "weak," other than writing off the sailors and attacking Iran -- in a little, med, or big way -- diplomacy, sanctions, public opprobrium abides as the only alternative.
Lastly, the Brits must be asking themselves some questions "is warring against Islam the best course of action?" For that is how it will be "sold" to and by the radical nut jobs. Also, what goes by "radical nut job over here" may be mainstream over there. Iran is not a secular nation.
Another question would be, "shall we write off the 15 sailors?" And we're back to a war v Islam, for it would be impossible to war just v Iran in the minds of many. The list of nations brought into the mix were such an action taken would be significant. Who would not be on the list? Some nations, sure, but you get my drift.
The only reason to go "all in" is that the West may well have to do it anyway in the future when Islam may be stronger. Though I can't see Islamic countries gaining that much military might to fight a conventional war and even coming close. Also, I know you didn't advocate large scale military action, I'm just musing aloud.
I guess they could write off the sailors, bomb into oblivion some cities killing millions, bar all Muslims and middle easterners from entering England, and lob more bombs whenever Iran makes a peep publicly. Not easy choices if you are hesitant to committing the sons of British mothers to all out war.
Then there's the oil. All of it would be a conflagration like the world has yet to see. My own personal wish is to shut them all up and make them play nice. HAH! Fat chance on that one.
Hopefully, you are correct! There's a plan afoot to rescue them; and after it's all over, that operation will go down in history as textbook example of shrewed planning and execution.
-
Hi All,
What I wonder about is the greater strategic thinking of the Iranians behind all of this.
The evidence seems to indicate that the operation was planned in advance, the Iranian Revolutionary guards took only 3 minutes to move from their monitoring positions on their side of the waterway to the Indian flagged Dhow the British were inspecting and managed to nab the boarding party at their most vulnerable moment, after the helo had withdrawn, and as they were climbing down the side of the ship back into their RIBs.
What, though, was the strategic objective behind the kidnapping?
1) To provoke the US & Britain into aggression against Iran and thus begin active hostillities?
or
2) To demonstrate to the Islamic world how weak the US and Britain actually are in regards to Iran, thus gaining greater support at a time when they are thumbing their nose at the worldwide community over the Nuclear issue?
Both scenarios actually make a lot of sense from the Iranian point of view.
The first because Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs have stated that they expect such a conflict to precede the return of the Mahdi and the final victory of Islam. But even without the crazed apocalyptic angle, such a conflict would still make sense.
The US and Britain cannot hope to win such a conflict conventionally. Sure their armed forces could capture any particular city in Iran they wanted to, the problem as has been demonstrated in Iraq is not in taking territory it is in holding territory and pacifying the area. When you are dealing with a nation stocked to the gills with a population willing to die in matyrdom operations, and you are unable politically or morally to take the draconian steps necessary to pacify such a people, outright invasion looks even less viable than the invasion of the Japanese home islands was in 1945.
So, any conventional conflict would end in a manner similar to that of the Hezbollah/Israel war with the US and Britain forced to withdraw and with the prestige of Iran in the middle east boosted yet again. Additionally, the Iranian spin on the circumstances of the conflict "Our Sacred Territory was once again violated by those lying Imperialist infidel apes and pigs" would bring strong support from both the Islamic world and the limitless cadre of nations that despise America.
Additionally an open conflict would allow them to operate openly rather than semi-covertly in Iraq, and would help with the creation of a Shia state in Southern Iraq. Certainly the support of the Shia militias in Iraq for their war efforts would be guaranteed, so the US and Britain would be fighting Shi' ite guerillas and Shaheeds in both countries at once.
The Second scenario makes sense because they need continuing support from nations like China and Russia as well as the Arab world in order to continue their nuclear program despite UN sanctions. They need to show that the US and Britain are hopelessly overextended militarily and politically, that they can be bullied and are in fact paper tigers, and that there is no need to back down as Libya did. At this point as well, Ahmadinejad needs to rally the Iranian ummah to channel their hatred towards the infidels (rather than the leaders who are impoverishing them) and show that there is no reason to be afraid of threats from the decadent West.
What I think will indicate if it is 1 or 2 that they were after will be if they offer to release the sailors after a full apology from the UK. Clearly if they choose to try them it will have been #1 that they wanted all along.
Frankly, its hard for me to see how they can lose. Economic sanctions won't phase them, and nothing short of Nukes will militarily defeat them, and from their point of view, even if they all die, they still win. Nothing short of a radical change in worldview will prevail in that country.
- SEAGOON
-
Well said Seagoon!
Sure would be tidy to be able to never buy another drop of their precious oil.
For those of you who guffaw, check out the thread in here about "Shifts." I took the time to watch the video. It wasn't what I expected. What it was is a matter for discussion.
Shift happens.
-
Howdy Seagoon
afraid you are correct - unless we show some form of resolve, the US will lose whatever respect/fear that is left
-
Originally posted by Eagler
unless we show some form of resolve, the US will lose whatever respect/fear that is left
If you mean our allies or other nations, well . . . I guess.
If you mean Islam doing the fearing and respecting, I doubt they'll go along.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1604546,00.html
The Ex-CIA Field Officer who wrote the very short essay, above, casts that war may be inevitable.
-
I wouldn't be surprised to see on Tv "Breaking News" , : < US, UK and Israel launched a massive air strike against Iran, >
I think oil price would imediately jump to 100-150 $ /barel,
The super sensitive stock market and global economy could colapse,
It lost hundreds of bilions in 1 day , 2 weeks ago, after Alan Greenspan said something pesimistic about US economy, This job with Iran is very delicate dificult, with deadly side efects,
-
Originally posted by ghi
I wouldn't be surprised to see on Tv "Breaking News" , : < US, UK and Israel launched a massive air strike against Iran, >
I think oil price would imediately jump to 100-150 $ /barel,
The super sensitive stock market and global economy could colapse,
It lost hundreds of bilions in 1 day , 2 weeks ago, after Alan Greenspan said something pesimistic about US economy, This job with Iran is very delicate dificult, with deadly side efects,
Oil prices would go down, not up.
Piss on Iran.
-
Originally posted by ghi
I wouldn't be surprised to see on Tv "Breaking News" , : < US, UK and Israel launched a massive air strike against Iran, >
I think oil price would imediately jump to 100-150 $ /barel,
The super sensitive stock market and global economy could colapse,
It lost hundreds of bilions in 1 day , 2 weeks ago, after Alan Greenspan said something pesimistic about US economy, This job with Iran is very delicate dificult, with deadly side efects,
And just like every other war in the history of the world EVER EVER the economies will go up (with the exception of Iran's Economy).
-
Raise standards of living via warfare.
Thank God for the electoral college.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Oil prices would go down, not up.
Piss on Iran.
No, I do not think that would be the case. Oil prices would inflate owing to investors being nervous concerning supply issues. Remember when they rose when the Iranians closed the Gulf during the 80's?
All in all, I think Iran will hold out and eventually get a public apology from the UK. Not that I agree with that or that the UK is weak, it's just politics with Iran.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Raise standards of living via warfare.
Thank God for the electoral college.
Don't you have anything else of value to add to a discussion rather than old tired political sound bites? I wondered how long it would be before some one dropped the "it's Bush's fault". :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hap
If you mean our allies or other nations, well . . . I guess.
If you mean Islam doing the fearing and respecting, I doubt they'll go along.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1604546,00.html
The Ex-CIA Field Officer who wrote the very short essay, above, casts that war may be inevitable.
Interesting read Hap.
I find it difficult to believe we would attack Iran over this issue. That in and of itself would drive the left wing insane and cause chaos within our politics whose ramifications may just be the death nell to the right wing that the left is hoping for.
I hope calmer heads prevail.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Don't you have anything else of value to add to a discussion rather than old tired political sound bites? I wondered how long it would be before some one dropped the "it's Bush's fault". :rolleyes:
Mav,
You need a refund on your mind reading lessons. I wasn't thinking of Bush &/or anything about his adminsitration.
Bodhi,
I find it difficult to believe we would attack Iran over this issue. That in and of itself would drive the left wing insane and cause chaos within our politics whose ramifications may just be the death nell to the right wing that the left is hoping for.
I hope calmer heads prevail.
I too am always in the "cooler head" camp. I can see war ensuing though I don't know that the "left wing" nor "right wing" exists outide of Washington, the media, and websites and blogs, in the sense that fits well into your sentence. I certainly have used the same lingo and probably will again in the future.
I guess what I'm trying to say is there is a "political marketing industry" that is very well served by getting people to think that consolidated, unified, cohesive -- in a word -- unified -- political camps exist and are few and fairly well deliniated in America. It makes for good talk radio, and makes it easy to pin point "us" and "them."
I think the "wings" of both Democratic and Republican parties are short lived creatures. Lasting for a generation or so. For example, take the platform for either party in '59 or '63 (I might have the dates wrong) and compare them to what passes for being a good Republican or good Democrat today. I think there'll be some planks that those who identify themselves as staunch Repubs or Dems would not endorse. Don't know for sure, but I think the supposition apt.
I see 2 alternatives only: war or finding a way to get on with only our own oil.
Neither will happen overnight. At least I hope not for war overnight. And whatever shakes out, "necessity" will have a part either due to procrastination and reluctance, or haste and eagerness.
I'd like to think nations want to avoid war. That was not the case in WWI where they went to war singing was the phrase a history professor used to describe the jingoistic confidence. Did y'all catch the news article in USA Today, that 6 Americans are still alive who served in WWI. A good read if you can find it. The author, or a prof, makes the claim that all the stuff in the Middle East stems from the map redrawing at that time. I may have overstated that a tad, but that's the sense.
Take Care,
hap
p.s. I just peeked at this article long enough to read the first sentence. I the rest follows, the author echoes many sentiments I've seen expressed here. And, it follows suit with the discussion at hand.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KTA0FPSKNE5O5QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wiran730.xml
-
imop,the british diplomacy can't stop them, acording with the prophecies of the last days ,the Bible (Daniel,Reveletion,Ezekiel,), Nostradamus, are talking about the 3rd Antichrist and a new great power will arise in Iran and Central Asia. It will begin as an Iranian-led federation that will include nations and territories , and are going to invade Europe,
Ezekiel 38:5
" Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet: ..."
From Nostradamus:
shows clear in many quatrains, the Persian/iranian involvement in ww3, just few below
Naples, Palermo, and all Sicily
The entire coast will remain desolated:
There will remain no suburb, city or town
Not pillaged and robbed by the Barbarians. (C.7:6)
The chief of Persia will occupy great Olchades
The trireme fleet against the Mahometan people
From Parthia, and Media: and the Cyclades pillaged:
Long rest at the Ionian port. (C.3:64)
The great Arab will march far forward
He will be betrayed by the Byzantians:
Ancient Rhodes will come to meet him
And greater harm through the Austrian Panonnois. (C.5:47)
Through fire and arms not far from the Black Sea,
Will come from Persia to occupy Trebizand
To tremble Pharos, Myteline, Sol joyful
The Adriatic Sea covered with Arab blood. (C.5:27)
France because of Negligence assailed on five sides,
Tunis, Algiers stirred up by Persians:
Leon, Seville, Barcelona having failed,
For the Venetians there will be no fleet. (C.1:73)
-
Then perhaps you might want to expand on what this quote was intended to convey.
Thank God for the electoral college.
-
ghi, you realize that astrologers and other mysticals can make their predictions apply to any actual event past, present or future, given how unspecific everything they predict is?
Similar patterns happen all the time between two or more sciences, countries, political parties, lifestyles, people across the globes, etc. You can make anything into anything with "mystic" connections.
http://www.drabruzzi.com/images/Then%20a%20Miracle%20Occurs.jpg
-
Originally posted by ghi
The chief of Persia will occupy great Olchades
The trireme fleet against the Mahometan people
From Parthia, and Media: and the Cyclades pillaged:
Long rest at the Ionian port. (C.3:64)
oh noes, we gona be attacked by triremes, all is lost.
-
To answer the orignal question the UK is angry (and appreciative that the US has decided to conduct a naval excercise off the Iranian coast - thanks!). But...this has happened before and how often can they coerce prisoners to make confessions which anyone will believe?
Sadly I think even now politicians on both sides are playing games with these people (they will be handed back it's just a question of how much one side can extort from the other).
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
What I wonder about is the greater strategic thinking of the Iranians behind all of this.
Iran wants and needs one thing: Nukes.
Once they have them they are involnerable to an invation and all the US army's might will not be able to really threaten them. To do that they need to buy time.
As long as there is a continuuing low-intensity crisis going on, they are safe from any "peace talks" or multi-national effort to stop them. Therefor they must maintain side-crisises as to divert the world from the main issue. While Britain and US deal with the kidnapped soldiers crisis, they do not deal with the nukes. The Iranians have bought themselves another 2-3 months. After that, they will find something else. If this goes on long enough to get the nukes, they can give the US the finger and go back to their usual business.
-
doesn't matter if the brits are right or wrong.... not much they can do about it.
lazs
-
I'm afraid this just reveals the current Iranian government for what they are. A form of terrorist regime.
Let's just look at the facts. Iran is not at war with Iraq or Britain. Neither Iraq or Britain represent a threat to Iran, real or imagined. Yet the Iranians entered Iraqi waters and took hostage, British forces who were conducting a UN sanctioned search. Then they lied about it. Finally they coerced their prisoners to criticise their own government and to lie about what they were doing that day.They paraded the hostages on television in a pathetic attempt to humilitate them and their government.
What does that say about the Iranians? If I was Iranian I would be ashamed of my government and wonder exactly what kind of people were running my country.
There is a very thin veneer of civilisation running through many countries in the middle east particularly Iran. Childishness seems to be cherished by these people. They have a lot of growing up to do.
-
in some oppinions the iranians may already have the bomb, that's why are playing the macho guys
Russian General Suggests U.S. to Strike Iran April 6 (http://www.nowpublic.com/russian_general_suggests_u_s_to_strike_iran_april_6)
From the link
The Russian military experts estimate that the planning of the American military attack against Iran passed the point of nonreturn on February 20,
when the director of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei, recognized, in his report/ratio, the incapacity of the Agency “to confirm the peaceful character of the nuclear program of Iran”. According to the Russian weekly magazine Argoumenty nedeli, a military action will proceed during the first week of April, before Easter catholic and orthodoxe (this year they are celebrated the 8), when the “Western opinion” is on leave. It may be also that Iran is struck on Friday 6 public holiday in the Moslem countries.According to the American diagram, it will be a striking of only one day which will last 12 hours, 4 hours of morning at 16 o’clock in afternoon. The code name of the operation is to date “English ****” (Bite). A score of Iranian installations should be touched. With their number, centrifugal machines of uranium enrichment, centers of studies and laboratories. But the first block of the nuclear thermal power station of Bouchehr will not be touched. On the other hand, the Americans will neutralize the DCA, will run several Iranian buildings of war in the Gulf and will destroy the stations - keys of command of the armed forces. As many measurements which should remove in Teheran any capacity to counteract.
-
ghi,
I just scanned the news sources. No reports of a pending US attack.
-
GHI,
With all due respect to the Russian General in question, I wouldn't be willing to bet so much as a dollar on a British/American attack, it isn't feasible politically or militarily at present. Iran would need to up the ante considerably via a trial, an execution, or some other provactive military action first. All of these are possible of course, but my money is on them simply drawing out a protracted hostage crisis in order to simultaneously achieve option #2 that I mentioned and Bozon's objective of distracting attention from the Nuclear weapons program. Lest we forget, Ahmadinejad was one of the planners and executors of the first "Iranian Hostage Crisis" and they remember how well that went for them and how badly it went for the West.
Alternatively, there is the awful possibility that we are overthinking this and there really is no strategy and that the Iranians really are simply crack-pot Jihadists making it up day by day as they go along. :eek:
In which case, as soon as they have a Nuke and a delivery system. They'll use it.
- SEAGOON
-
for the oil govts iran is a propoganda chinese finger puzzle.
religious extremists on both sides fan the flames demonizing the other, but i wouldn't judge a whole populous by the incoherent rantings of their inept leaders.
ahmad-whatever days are numbered.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Alternatively, there is the awful possibility that we are overthinking this and there really is no strategy and that the Iranians really are simply crack-pot Jihadists making it up day by day as they go along. :eek:
They are not - and I don't know if that's good or bad.
Iran is playing its cards very smartly. They understand too well that the US and Britain are not ready for a strike on Iran - far less politically than militarily. They estimated correctly that most Europian powers will not act beyond releasing silly public statements. They assesed correcly the aspiraions of Putin to be a counter power to the west and that he will not easily cooperate againt them. They recognize the importance of the UN as a time-wasting tool and know how to use it expertly.
Iran leadership knows what it is doing, which I can say the same for the western goverments.
-
The west is pursuing a policy of appeasement... This has happened before.. His name was Neville Chamberlin I believe it was 1938 when whats his name was given the Sudatenland (spelling??)..
Well that worked out real good for everyone didnt it and it only killed roughly what 20 milliion people???
And as I stated in a similar thread if we dont do this Israel will......
I do agree with GHI on one point the facilites that need to be targeted could be done in less than 24 hours.....
Leave them blind, deaf and mute and also take out their infrastructure and capacity to enrich uranium....
Then negotiate their so called needs for fuel to produce electricity..
:aok
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Alternatively, there is the awful possibility that we are overthinking this and there really is no strategy and that the Iranians really are simply crack-pot Jihadists making it up day by day as they go along. SEAGOON
No, they aren't crackpots, but they aren't master political minds either. They gamble with every decision they make. If I didn't have a calendar, and I read this headline, I'd think it was 1986. This is just their version of brinksmanship. And yes, they are playing a dangerous game that typically results in "swapping paint" but not full-blown conflict. This will simply become another footnote in the historical and on-going culture clash between Iran and the U.S./U.K.--IMHO
-
LOL the Iranian claims seem to be getting more and more absurd: -
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1258576,00.html
-
Originally posted by ghi
imop,the british diplomacy can't stop them, acording with the prophecies of the last days ,the Bible (Daniel,Reveletion,Ezekiel,), Nostradamus, are talking about the 3rd Antichrist and a new great power will arise in Iran and Central Asia. It will begin as an Iranian-led federation that will include nations and territories , and are going to invade Europe,
Ezekiel 38:5
" Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet: ..."
From Nostradamus:
shows clear in many quatrains, the Persian/iranian involvement in ww3, just few below
Naples, Palermo, and all Sicily
The entire coast will remain desolated:
There will remain no suburb, city or town
Not pillaged and robbed by the Barbarians. (C.7:6)
The chief of Persia will occupy great Olchades
The trireme fleet against the Mahometan people
From Parthia, and Media: and the Cyclades pillaged:
Long rest at the Ionian port. (C.3:64)
The great Arab will march far forward
He will be betrayed by the Byzantians:
Ancient Rhodes will come to meet him
And greater harm through the Austrian Panonnois. (C.5:47)
Through fire and arms not far from the Black Sea,
Will come from Persia to occupy Trebizand
To tremble Pharos, Myteline, Sol joyful
The Adriatic Sea covered with Arab blood. (C.5:27)
France because of Negligence assailed on five sides,
Tunis, Algiers stirred up by Persians:
Leon, Seville, Barcelona having failed,
For the Venetians there will be no fleet. (C.1:73)
Nuclear weapons would make this post yet another "unfulfilled prophecy". That region should be wiped off of the map. I say "cover it with Arab blood". I wish someone would assassinate the Iranian idiot running the country.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Iran wants and needs one thing: Nukes.
They want Nukes? I say drop em. They'll get em.
-
nukes are a over reaction, a few well placed bullets are all that is needed, where is 007 when you need him?
-
Originally posted by Viking
You saw a French-German weapon system that has been in production since the 1970's and is widely exported and was in use by Iraq long before the war ... and you take this as proof that the French were selling weapons to Iraq during the embargo? And the AT-3 Sagger is a 1960's era weapon. Deductive reasoning seems not to be your strongest suit sir.
Well the French have been selling arms to Iraq forever. I stood in a bunker in 1991, during Desert Storm, that was filled with French Light Anti Tank Rockets. My unit took those rockets with us when we left the area. 48 cases total with 2 rockets per case. I don't remember the designation of the things but they were the French version of the old LAWS rocket the US used before the AT-4 came online. I saw them with my own eyes. I held them in my own hands. I fired 3 of them just to see what they could do.
-
As far as dealing with the current situation in Iran, how about this for a reply.
Tell Iran they 48 hours to release those sailors and marines or they will pay a stiff price. Then fly over Terran with a B-2 bomber and open the doors so it can be picked up on radar for a few seconds, take a couple of pictures and release those to the press with a statement that in 48 hours that plane will be back, and when it is detected on radar again it will be dropping off a few presents targeted on a few selected locations, like the idiot Iranian presidents home, the building where the ruling Islamic mullas hang out, that sort of thing.
Send a couple of F-22's along for escort and blow anything that gets within 50 miles of the bomber out of the sky.
When planes start popping up on their radars and then dissapear again without a trace, and then things just start blowing up around them, they might get the hint that we're not messing around anymore.
-
Could be he was alluding to this:
"In 2003, controversy erupted between Poland and France when Polish forces from the Multinational force in Iraq found French Roland surface-to-air missiles and Polish and international press reported that Polish officers claimed had been manufactured in 2003. France pointed out that the latest Roland missiles were manufactured in the early 1990s and thus the manufacturing date was necessarily an error (it turned out it was probably the expiry date that was indicated), and affirmed that it had never sold weapons to Iraq in violation of the embargo. Investigations by the Polish authorities came to the conclusion that the persons responsible for the scandal were low level commanders, Wojskowe Służby Informacyjne the Polish Army's intelligence had not verified their claims before they were leaked to the press. Poland apologized to France for the scandal, but these allegations against France worsened the already somewhat strained relationships between the two countries. The entire incident was called sarcasticly "Rolandgate" by the Polish media, using the unofficial naming conventions of US political scandals after Watergate..." (from Wiki)
Interestingly enough, a guy I worked with in 29 Palms told me that he found a mechanized (tracked) version of a Roland system during the invasion that had a data plate (on the chassis) that stated a date of manufacture of 2002. He wouldn't lie about it, and was an intel type that knew his way around OPFOR vehicles. Who knows?
-
it reminds me of the situation at the border of North Korea where
a us plane have to emergency land inside NK. after meet two
NK fighter pilots and collided with one.
Missions close to the border of an enemy are risky, what do you expect?
Get over it, next time be more carefully.
and some here calling for nukes
LOL *shaking head*
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
it reminds me of the situation at the border of North Korea where
a us plane have to emergency land inside NK. after meet two
NK fighter pilots and collided with one.
Missions close to the border of an enemy are risky, what do you expect?
Get over it, next time be more carefully.
and some here calling for nukes
LOL *shaking head*
i thought that was china?
-
Iran acted very foolishly regardless of any perdetermined path. The area is a war zone, where one missile set off anywhere by anyone will cause ships to react very quickly and the thoughtful would know its not recoverable at that point. A thoughtful nation would not be too critical of activities on a disputed border during an occupation. A thoughtful Iranian government, understanding of the problems in Iraq would be expected to simply stand aside, assist or make a presence in an effort to help remove the smuggling which they also should be helping to prevent.
That it was a holiday and that the Iranians were so close by, only indicates that the ship was smuggling. The British sailors can't be expected to disassemble the entire ship and as such they wouldn't discover much. The Iranians overreacted, rushed in and when they discovered the ship was cleared didnt know what to do to explain their hasty entry.
The British have a long history and know exactly how to resolve this. There will be no need for any kind of hostilities but it's still up in the air isn't it. It would be a good time to empty your embassy in Iran though as the Iranians have the same depth of reasoning as a bunch of college girls during March break and they are already climbing the British fence.
There will be a war with Iran. Not today perhaps but it will be soon. Israel is not going away and Islam will not change its hard line. It's soon but I doubt its today.
Drafting the youth of America seems a waste. Lots of old farts would love to end their tour in armchair combat. The reality of 50 and older personal stationed in North America fighting a war on the other side of the globe from an arm chair is not unrealistic. A nuclear war in the middle east is almost a certainty however. Nothing to be done about it but be happy with who you are and the things you have done in life.
RASTER
-
Originally posted by john9001
nukes are a over reaction, a few well placed bullets are all that is needed, where is 007 when you need him?
I agree with you John, but I was just addressing a "need" for Iran. :)