or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iran Captures and Holds British Sailors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iran Captures and Holds British Sailors

post #1 of 367
Thread Starter 
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22

Uh-oh. Let's hope this isn't the spark that starts "it."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 367
I was reading about that- apparently- they dragged the UK soldiers into Iranian waters.

I wonder if the ship they had boarded held some very important "cargo" destined for Iraq?

I am not sure this will be a spark for war though. You;d have to really want to start a war over such a thing. You know, just looking for any excuse
post #3 of 367
Didn't North Korea hold some of our troops a few years back when a choper or plane went down? Or was that China?

Either way I remember us handling it using our super duper diplomacy...I don't see why we can't do the same here unless we choose not to.
post #4 of 367
Iran will return them with little issue. They don't want to risk re-assembly of the coalition against them.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #5 of 367
trailmaster-

it was china- they held some of our USAF personnel after they emergency landed .. i think it was in Taiwan, after a collision with a Chinese fighter pilot (who died- I think his name was wang).
post #6 of 367
Sounds like some overzealous Iranian troops. I imagine that, after an interrogation as to why the troops were where they were and what they intended to do, they'll be released.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #7 of 367
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoNut View Post

Sounds like some overzealous Iranian troops. I imagine that, after an interrogation as to why the troops were where they were and what they intended to do, they'll be released.

Uh..they were in Iraqi waters. We have the blessing of the Iraqi government to be there. Do they? Interogation my ass.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 367
post #9 of 367
Wars often follow small minor events. History is littered with them. Look at what happened in Lebanon last summer, as a recent example.

Is it in Iran's interest to provoke a war against the western industrialized nations lined up against them next door, with the combined air power of the US, UK, Israel and others?

Is Iran really after 10s of thousands of their own civilians killed and much of their infrastructure in smoking ruins?

If the answer is "yes".......
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #10 of 367
The sheep continue to lap up the Bushinista propaganda. Clearly, this is a Karl Rove event staged to distract from the inadequacies and improprieties of the Bushinistas. Credible sources are reporting Halliburton painters putting the final touches on Iranian Warships in an Iraqi/US boat yard just 3 days ago. Very interesting. As usual, the sheep lack the tools to assemble the puzzle. I will spell it out for those in cognitive drought: New Muslim aggression needed to distract from new Whitehouse scandal. Carry on.
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #11 of 367
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Wars often follow small minor events. History is littered with them. Look at what happened in Lebanon last summer, as a recent example.

Is it in Iran's interest to provoke a war against the western industrialized nations lined up against them next door, with the combined air power of the US, UK, Israel and others?

Is Iran really after 10s of thousands of their own civilians killed and much of their infrastructure in smoking ruins?

If the answer is "yes".......


Let's hope not. Then again, there are elements of Iran's government that don't think in these terms. When part of your government and culture believes the end of the world is a good thing, then it's a different story. Obviously mainstream Iranians don't agree with that view. My understanding is that there is quite a bit of pro-West setiment in Iran. However, these folks don't have their fingers on the button. Who knows what President Tom and the Mullahs think is a good idea. It's all very interesting...the UN Security Council is about to impose more sanctions, Russia has pulled out of the reactor project...and now this. No wonder Ahmadinejad's popularity is sagging. He's not doing them any favors.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

The sheep continue to lap up the Bushinista propaganda. Clearly, this is a Karl Rove event staged to distract from the inadequacies and improprieties of the Bushinistas. Credible sources are reporting Halliburton painters putting the final touches on Iranian Warships in an Iraqi/US boat yard just 3 days ago. Very interesting. As usual, the sheep lack the tools to assemble the puzzle. I will spell it out for those in cognitive drought: New Muslim aggression needed to distract from new Whitehouse scandal. Carry on.

It's all Rove and the Number 42. That's all you need to know.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #13 of 367
Lets give this some thought.
1. Royal Navy ship approaches target to drop off troops in rubber boats.
2. Royal Navy ship has radar. Knows who else is near.
3. Royal Navy allows Iranian Navy ship to approach and board target.
4. Royal Navy allows Iranian Navy ship to capture British troops (no gunfire).

This only makes sense if the Royal Navy ship knew that this happened in Iranian waters.

I hope that the above is wrong, but I am waiting for a better explanation.
post #14 of 367
Let's send Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton over there to negotiate. Yea... that's it...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #15 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

Bushinistas.

That's a new one. edit: Bushinistas?

Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

Credible sources are reporting Halliburton painters putting the final touches on “Iranian Warships” in an Iraqi/US boat yard just 3 days ago. Very interesting. As usual, the sheep lack the tools to assemble the puzzle.

This "sheep" would like a source or link please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by southside grabowski View Post

I will spell it out for those in cognitive drought: New Muslim aggression needed to distract from new Whitehouse scandal. Carry on.

I'm not bashing you. This administration will do anything to sway us sheep, but that whole "painted Iranian ships" needs some back up (and don't link to Prisonplanet).

Here's the first ripple from this incident. Pretty obvious. Guess they were tired of using a



for the other excuses.
post #16 of 367
Oh boy! Oh Boy! A conspiracy! A conspiracy! Where do we add to? Weeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #17 of 367
post #18 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Oh boy! Oh Boy! A conspiracy! A conspiracy! Where do we add to? Weeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

Start your own thread!
post #19 of 367
post #20 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Iranian president to visit U.S. Saturday

Waitaminnit.... I'm confusing reality with the latest episodes of '24'...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Iran will return them with little issue. They don't want to risk re-assembly of the coalition against them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmoNut View Post

Sounds like some overzealous Iranian troops. I imagine that, after an interrogation as to why the troops were where they were and what they intended to do, they'll be released.

I certainly hope that's true, but I'm not so sure. I have a feeling their seizing of these individuals is in retaliation (tit for tat) for the recent seizing/kidnapping/abduction of high-level Iranians.

Quote:
IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.

According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran’s military command.

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

The first sign of a possible campaign against high-ranking Iranian officers emerged earlier this month with the discovery that Ali Reza Asgari, former commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force in Lebanon and deputy defence minister, had vanished, apparently during a trip to Istanbul.

Asgari’s disappearance shocked the Iranian regime as he is believed to possess some of its most closely guarded secrets. The Quds Force is responsible for operations outside Iran.

Last week it was revealed that Colonel Amir Muhammed Shirazi, another high-ranking Revolutionary Guard officer, had disappeared, probably in Iraq.

A third Iranian general is also understood to be missing — the head of the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf. Sources named him as Brigadier General Muhammed Soltani, but his identity could not be confirmed.

“This is no longer a coincidence, but rather an orchestrated operation to shake the higher echelons of the Revolutionary Guard,” said an Israeli source.

Other members of the Quds Force are said to have been seized in Irbil, in the Kurdish area of northern Iraq, by US special forces.

“The capture of Quds members in Irbil was essential for our understanding of Iranian activity in Iraq,” said an American official with knowledge of the operation.

One theory circulating in Israel is that a US taskforce known as the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG) is coordinating the campaign to take Revolutionary Guard commanders.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1530527.ece
Much have I seen and known...yet all experience is an arch, wherethrough gleams that untravelled world whose margin fades forever and forever when I move. - Tennyson
Reply
Much have I seen and known...yet all experience is an arch, wherethrough gleams that untravelled world whose margin fades forever and forever when I move. - Tennyson
Reply
post #22 of 367
this is Bush's fault in 3.....2......1.....
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #23 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Wars often follow small minor events. History is littered with them. Look at what happened in Lebanon last summer, as a recent example.

Is it in Iran's interest to provoke a war against the western industrialized nations lined up against them next door, with the combined air power of the US, UK, Israel and others?

Is Iran really after 10s of thousands of their own civilians killed and much of their infrastructure in smoking ruins?

If the answer is "yes".......

I agree. It's the minor events - that no-one sees coming - that often escalate a situation since no-one has planned for it and everybody starts improvising.

Although I'm not sure how "unplanned" a situation this would eventually be. Iran has to know that every major power involved has an offensive strategy tucked away, and everybody knows that Iran has long made preparations to defend itself from an invasion.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #24 of 367
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I agree. It's the minor events - that no-one sees coming - that often escalate a situation since no-one has planned for it and everybody starts improvising.

Although I'm not sure how "unplanned" a situation this would eventually be. Iran has to know that every major power involved has an offensive strategy tucked away, and everybody knows that Iran has long made preparations to defend itself from an invasion.

Militarily speaking, such plans would be futile. Iran cannot withstand a US attack.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #25 of 367
Quote:
Militarily speaking, such plans would be futile. Iran cannot withstand a US attack.

Iran might not be able to withstand a US attack, but then again, neither could Iraq or Afghanistan, yet we're still bogged down in both countries. \

The thought of yet another military conflict has me not only concerned, but scared. I mean, you can almost hear the sigh in his voice when the Secretary of Defense says something to the effect of, "Yeah, I guess we could do another war despite the fact that our Armed Forces are already stretched so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan". If there is any lesson to be learned from both of these wars, it's that you can't underestimate the number of troops you will need to win the war.

We're at the point in Afghanistan now where there are more police officers in NYC than American troops in Afghanistan. Yet this was the terrorist haven where Al Qaeda was able to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks and where senior Taliban and Al Qaeda officials continue to evade capture and prosecution for their crimes. Our top priority should have been to round these guys up yet there weren't enough troops committed to the effort. We saw the results of this at Tora Bora where the Northern Alliance was sent in to take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces instead of coalition forces. If we only had more troops on the ground, I think Bin Laden would have been captured along with Mullah Omar and other high level officials.

The same is true with Iraq, we didn't have enough troops on the ground to get the job done and it allowed the insurgency to survive. The fact that the majority of the weapons that the 'insurgents' have were taken from Iraqi army ammo dumps that we seized in the first days of the war and didn't have enough troops to defend them speaks volumes about the need to have enough boots on the ground when we start.

Now we're talking war with Iran and we already know that there we don't have enough troops to get the job done right in a timely manner. Are we going to have a draft to boost our miliatry's numbers? If not, what would we do if a crisis developed elsewhere in the world? What if Pakistan's government fell apart and Islamic radicals took over? Then we'd have to deal with an Islamic state that we know has nuclear weapons. What if China decided to invade Taiwan or North Korea decided to attack South Korea? What if the Saudi government was overthrown? These things aren't out of the realm of possibility.

Hopefully diplomacy will work and get these British soldiers back home soon. The last thing we want right now is yet another front in the 'war on terror'.
post #26 of 367
There was some discussion earlier as to previous examples of this kind of event. I didn't see the USS Pueblo mentioned.

Wiki Article on USS Pueblo. USS Pueblo was captured by North Korean forces in 1968.

Just FYI how it went down when I was a kid.

V/R,
Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #27 of 367
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran441 View Post

Iran might not be able to withstand a US attack, but then again, neither could Iraq or Afghanistan, yet we're still bogged down in both countries. \

The thought of yet another military conflict has me not only concerned, but scared. I mean, you can almost hear the sigh in his voice when the Secretary of Defense says something to the effect of, "Yeah, I guess we could do another war despite the fact that our Armed Forces are already stretched so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan". If there is any lesson to be learned from both of these wars, it's that you can't underestimate the number of troops you will need to win the war.

We're at the point in Afghanistan now where there are more police officers in NYC than American troops in Afghanistan. Yet this was the terrorist haven where Al Qaeda was able to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks and where senior Taliban and Al Qaeda officials continue to evade capture and prosecution for their crimes. Our top priority should have been to round these guys up yet there weren't enough troops committed to the effort. We saw the results of this at Tora Bora where the Northern Alliance was sent in to take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces instead of coalition forces. If we only had more troops on the ground, I think Bin Laden would have been captured along with Mullah Omar and other high level officials.

The same is true with Iraq, we didn't have enough troops on the ground to get the job done and it allowed the insurgency to survive. The fact that the majority of the weapons that the 'insurgents' have were taken from Iraqi army ammo dumps that we seized in the first days of the war and didn't have enough troops to defend them speaks volumes about the need to have enough boots on the ground when we start.

Now we're talking war with Iran and we already know that there we don't have enough troops to get the job done right in a timely manner. Are we going to have a draft to boost our miliatry's numbers? If not, what would we do if a crisis developed elsewhere in the world? What if Pakistan's government fell apart and Islamic radicals took over? Then we'd have to deal with an Islamic state that we know has nuclear weapons. What if China decided to invade Taiwan or North Korea decided to attack South Korea? What if the Saudi government was overthrown? These things aren't out of the realm of possibility.

Hopefully diplomacy will work and get these British soldiers back home soon. The last thing we want right now is yet another front in the 'war on terror'.

I hear you, but your entire post is predicated on the notion that attacking Iran would look like Iraq in terms of what we'd do. I would not forsee a ground invasion of any kind. We'd likely perform a massive air operation aimed at their nuclear, dual-use and military facilities/assets.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #28 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

trailmaster-

it was china- they held some of our USAF personnel after they emergency landed .. i think it was in Taiwan, after a collision with a Chinese fighter pilot (who died- I think his name was wang).

No it was a Navy patrol plane doing electronic surveillance (spying) off the coast of China reportable over international waters. A Chinese jet collided with it caused it to do an emergency landing on a Chinese island way down in the South. The jet and pilot were never seen again. China held the crew longer than they needed too and wouldn't allow the plane to be repaired and flown out. Instead the Russian brought in a plane large enough to fit the navy plane in it with the wings and tail pulled off. The whole thing was kind of silly on China's part.

Taiwan is separate from China. They have their own government separate from China although China doesn't consider is separate.

Anyway this thing with sounds like a he said she said where's the border type thing. Nothing will come of it but the neo-cons will be talking about for years.
post #29 of 367
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

No it was a Navy patrol plane doing electronic surveillance (spying) off the coast of China reportable over international waters. A Chinese jet collided with it caused it to do an emergency landing on a Chinese island way down in the South. The jet and pilot were never seen again. China held the crew longer than they needed too and wouldn't allow the plane to be repaired and flown out. Instead the Russian brought in a plane large enough to fit the navy plane in it with the wings and tail pulled off. The whole thing was kind of silly on China's part.

Taiwan is separate from China. They have their own government separate from China although China doesn't consider is separate.

Anyway this thing with sounds like a he said she said where's the border type thing. Nothing will come of it but the neo-cons will be talking about for years.

Don't be so sure. If they take "hostages," we're going to war. Mark my words.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1560788.ece
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Don't be so sure. If they take "hostages," we're going to war. Mark my words.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1560788.ece

Who's "we".
post #31 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Militarily speaking, such plans would be futile. Iran cannot withstand a US attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran441 View Post

Iran might not be able to withstand a US attack, but then again, neither could Iraq or Afghanistan, yet we're still bogged down in both countries. \

Well, exactly. It's so ironic that our military might becomes almost useless when faced with third-world guerrilla tactics - suicide bombers and road-side IEDs. I think I read a few years ago that because of the nature of these current wars, our special forces capabilities had been greatly expanded.

Really, special forces troops would be the best choice for rooting out guerrilla-style insurgencies. Sounds like 'that' is actually being done, according to the article I quoted above, with special forces units kidnapping high-level Iranian Revolutionary guard operatives.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran441 View Post

The thought of yet another military conflict has me not only concerned, but scared. I mean, you can almost hear the sigh in his voice when the Secretary of Defense says something to the effect of, "Yeah, I guess we could do another war despite the fact that our Armed Forces are already stretched so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan". If there is any lesson to be learned from both of these wars, it's that you can't underestimate the number of troops you will need to win the war.
[snip]
The same is true with Iraq, we didn't have enough troops on the ground to get the job done and it allowed the insurgency to survive. The fact that the majority of the weapons that the 'insurgents' have were taken from Iraqi army ammo dumps that we seized in the first days of the war and didn't have enough troops to defend them speaks volumes about the need to have enough boots on the ground when we start.

I agree completely. In the first Iraq war, basically run by the generals, the coalition had overwhelming force, and were fighting a mostly conventional war against a conventional army. For this second Iraq war, it didn't help that the 4th Infantry Division was held up in the harbor in Turkey and wasn't permitted to debark. The loss of those forces, coupled with Rumsfeld's general desire to 'go light' with the number of troops in Baghdad and elsewhere, spelled disaster for a successful outcome from the very beginning.

Quote:
Now we're talking war with Iran and we already know that there we don't have enough troops to get the job done right in a timely manner. Are we going to have a draft to boost our miliatry's numbers? If not, what would we do if a crisis developed elsewhere in the world? What if Pakistan's government fell apart and Islamic radicals took over? Then we'd have to deal with an Islamic state that we know has nuclear weapons. What if China decided to invade Taiwan or North Korea decided to attack South Korea? What if the Saudi government was overthrown? These things aren't out of the realm of possibility.

Yes, any and all of these things should be planned for. I think the whole Pakistan scenario is the scariest and most volatile, because all that needs to fall is *one* domino - Musharraf - and then god knows what will happen.

Quote:
Hopefully diplomacy will work and get these British soldiers back home soon. The last thing we want right now is yet another front in the 'war on terror'.

I don't think Ahmadinejad is interested in diplomacy. He's basically a thug, and these sailors will be used to get what he wants in an international extortion scheme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I hear you, but your entire post is predicated on the notion that attacking Iran would look like Iraq in terms of what we'd do. I would not forsee a ground invasion of any kind. We'd likely perform a massive air operation aimed at their nuclear, dual-use and military facilities/assets.

Yeah, I agree. I haven't checked lately, but don't we still have three carrier groups in the middle east right now?
Much have I seen and known...yet all experience is an arch, wherethrough gleams that untravelled world whose margin fades forever and forever when I move. - Tennyson
Reply
Much have I seen and known...yet all experience is an arch, wherethrough gleams that untravelled world whose margin fades forever and forever when I move. - Tennyson
Reply
post #32 of 367
Well, one (wo)man's thug is another person's leader of the free world. So it goes.

I predict Ahmadinejad will continue to stall/promise/excuse until backed into a corner. What that particular corner is I can't predict, though if we freeze the money I expect a semi-decisive reaction (I'll say 5 days). After that, he'll make noises about cutting off oil imports to the US. Of course, that can't happen on 43's watch, so without any monetary sanctions to rely on he'll throw the switch to [strike]invade[/strike]* 'step carefully into' Iran from the West.

This, of course, is filled with 'not good'. Iran will kick the US ass thoroughly and completely. The US, in it's ultimate hubris, will resort to nukes.

This is the way the world ends.


*wtf? I though y'all were down with teh Vb.
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.
Reply
post #33 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

this is Bush's fault in 3.....2......1.....


What part of the world has he been throwing his weight around in?

Where did he just have an unnecessary war?

Where has there been rumblings of the very same?

You do the math.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 367
So, will Britain just let her men be hijacked from Iraqi waters? Just let diplomacy work? Let her men be put on trial? Apologize for an incursion? MoD will just bend over?

Did the stupid bastards in Iran who ordered this action talk to the Argentines first?

These weren't just British citizens kidnapped by Iran, these were coalition warfighters.

Before this incident, it could be argued that Iran was benign (while first ignoring the evidence that Iran is supplying the bad guys in Iraq, and that they might be working like hell for some kind of atomic/nuclear capability). Now...?

V/R,

Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #35 of 367
Wow... show trials seem to be in the air these days...

Iran ‘to try Britons for espionage’

First Chucky Schumer, now Ahmadinejad. Maybe we can get some others in on this? Ken Starr where are you? Fitz?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #36 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by 709 View Post

Iran will kick the US ass thoroughly and completely.

That is beyond the pale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

US - $532 billion/year
Iran - $6 billion/year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...military_power

And most of those troops that Iran has are conscript troops, which are less effective
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #37 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

That is beyond the pale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

US - $532 billion/year
Iran - $6 billion/year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...military_power

And most of those troops that Iran has are conscript troops, which are less effective

The world has never seen anything as devastating as the US Military when properly employed. The idea that a nation like Iran would be a challenge is, well, "interesting." We could win a war without putting a single boot on the ground. Now, the oil is another issue altogether...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #38 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

The world has never seen anything as devastating as the US Military when properly employed. The idea that a nation like Iran would be a challenge is, well, "interesting." We could win a war without putting a single boot on the ground. Now, the oil is another issue altogether...

A war with Iran would be easily winnable - not as easy as the first gulf war though due to the mountains. It is a bigger country than Iraq, and has more rugged terrain.

The only complication would be the rest of the world noticing that we were well on our way to an occupation of the whole middle east - they may have a problem with that.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #39 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

A war with Iran would be easily winnable - not as easy as the first gulf war though due to the mountains. It is a bigger country than Iraq, and has more rugged terrain.

The only complication would be the rest of the world noticing that we were well on our way to an occupation of the whole middle east - they may have a problem with that.

Yea... let's get out of Iraq... just so we can get on with business in Iran- the financiers of Hamas, Iraq Insurgents, and Hezbollah. Time to clean house.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #40 of 367
I can't help but notice that this story has all but disappeared from the headlines of CNN, ABC, Yahoo and the mainstream news sites, at the time of writing 9-25pm Pacific Time. Perhaps those Brits did stray (or were ordered) into Iranian territory, as Iran is now claiming, and they can really prove it. Is it realistic that the American public could conceive of the notion that Iran is actually telling the truth? Or have we all been programmed to think that they are liars/terrorists/evil/etc because we in the west have been programmed to think that all Islamic peoples are, by default, of such character?

Over the last year, there has been a relentless promotion by the US Government, via the media in their standard kow-tow-kneepad mode, of the notion that Iran has a "nuclear weapons program". Just like the issue of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" (!), the newspapers and TV are now resounding with the words of rightwing thinktanks, armchair generals, conservative commentators and "military experts and analysts", regurgitating White House copy ad nauseam. The UN is being similarly led by the nose, with little actual evidence to justify sanctions against Iran. It doesn't matter whether Iran is telling the truth, or otherwise about their nuclear ambitions. It doesn't matter whether their (nuclear) program is for peaceful use i.e. generating power, as claimed by the Iranian government, or for nuclear weapons, as claimed by Israel and its proxy, the Bush Administration. The endless repetition via the media that Iran "has a nuclear weapons program" is enough to instill into the public psyche that this is truly the case. Snd how much time and energy do the general public have, in order to delve and research the facts for themselves?

Reality has nothing to do with this controversy: The ground was broken in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks, when the US (and allies) declared war on the world's Islamic peoples, under the guise of a "war on terrorism". The upcoming war (in the form of massive air strikes rather than a ground invasion) against Iran was part of the September 2000 plan by the NeoCons; they WILL get their 3rd desired war of the planned series. If the current British troops fracas isn't the trigger that starts the ball rolling, then there will be some other incident, either real or manufactured.

The bottom line: the Bush Administration WILL launch some kind of war against Iran within the next year (or sooner), and there is nothing anyone or any nation will be able to do in order to stop this from happening. In the end, Iran's alleged nuclear sites and military facilities will be destroyed and flattened beyond all recognition, so any evidence (real, or imaginary, according to one's political leanings) that Iran was manufacturing nukes will never be proven, one way or the other, and all we will have to go on will be our undying faith in the Bush Administration's claim that they were telling the truth. Despite the improbability of a more dishonest and untrustworthy government than the Blair and Bush administrations have showed themselves to be during the last 5.5 years, the public will, as usual, be placated.

The point being, the Bush Administration/neocons have the power to do whatever they want. Even if they mess up to the nth degree, as in Iraq, "accountability" is not in our current system's vocabulary.

The other bottom line re. the imminent Iran war is "cui bono"? Will anyone of note ever dare ask that question?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iran Captures and Holds British Sailors