Options limited in Iran stand-off
Options limited in Iran stand-off
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC News website
The British government is preparing to turn private into public diplomacy in an effort to get the release of the 15 sailors and marines captured by the Iranians. But its options are somewhat limited if Iran does not respond .
The British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett returned to London early from a visit to Turkey after an inconclusive phone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Mrs Beckett will make a statement to the House of Commons on Wednesday.
And the Ministry of Defence is preparing to show evidence that the British sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters when they were taken.
However, if Britain creates a lot of sound and fury, Iran can respond. It is good at playing that game and the risk is that the Iranian government would simply exploit the incident for even longer.
The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a master of rhetoric and riposte. He has shown a ready defiance of the UN Security Council over Iran's enrichment of uranium. He thrives on a confrontation.
According to Mark Bowden, in his book "Guests of the Ayatollah" about the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979, Mr Ahmadinejad was "one of the central players in the group that seized the embassy and held hostages."
The American hostages were held for 444 days, initially as a bargaining tool for the exiled Shah, and released only on the day that President Jimmy Carter left office. Mr Carter was humiliated by the episode.
'Different phase'
There has been talk in Iran, denied by the foreign ministry, that Iran is looking for the release of five of its officials detained by the Americans in Iraq and accused of being secret agents.
The atmosphere is not conducive to compromise. It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial
Part of President Carter's problem was that he sounded weak and the American public did not like that, though he argued that his priority was the safety of the captives.
So Tony Blair might well ratchet up the language to sound tougher if this goes on. He has already said that the row will move to a "different phase" if there is no breakthrough.
So what options are open to him?
GPS data
Force is out. It is seen as counterproductive. Instead, Mr Blair could release the data, from GPS satellite locators and radar traces, which should show where the British party was when it was taken.
The British government insists that its personnel were inside Iraqi territorial waters at the time and not on the Iranian side as Iran claims. The ship the boarding party was inspecting is still said to be at the same location. Data might not convince the Iranians but it might convince the rest of the world.
The demarcation line is vague, so Iran might dispute any data. The line was supposed to have been laid down along the middle of the channel in a treaty in 1975 but this incident happened in the Gulf itself where the line peters out.
In any event, the treaty was broken when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran across the same waterway, known to the Arabs as the Shatt al-Arab and to the Iranians as the Arvandrud, the River Arvand.
Louder voices
Mr Blair could call on other countries to make stronger representations, on the grounds that the British were on the right side of the line and the right side of the law, acting under a UN resolution allowing for foreign forces to be in Iraq.
The EU has already made a statement. A Russian or Chinese comment might be more helpful but both countries are reluctant to take sides. He could turn to the UN itself.
The Iraqi government's request for the release of the detainees might also count as Iran has reasonably good relations with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.
Britain could expel Iranian diplomats and even break off relations. That, however, could be matched move for move and might leave the UK damagingly out of contacts with Iran over the larger issue of its nuclear activities.
Domestic pressure
Such measures might help satisfy domestic critics like The Times, whose editorial line is that the British government has been "pusillanimous".
It wants a deadline set for a release and unspecified sanctions applied thereafter by the UK and its allies, including possibly the Iraqi government.
But setting a deadline is unlikely to impress Iran. It is currently ignoring a UN deadline on enrichment.
An apology by Britain might get the men and the woman sailor, now named as Faye Turney, released. The last time this happened, in 2004, the British personnel did say sorry on Iranian TV and were freed.
To an extent this is out of Mr Blair's hands. The British personnel might indicate regret on their own initiative.
It is unlikely that the British government would do so.
Relations worse
The reason for this is that things have soured with Iran since 2004. A new government is in power there and for the last 18 months the UK and the US have accused Iran, especially the Revolutionary Guards who detained the British sailors, of helping Shia guerrillas with bomb technology.
The atmosphere therefore is not conducive to compromise.
It would get worse if the sailors were put on trial.
The best the British government can probably hope for is that in due course Iran will make its point and then make the release.
The Jimmy Carter scenario is one that London does not want to think about.
[email]Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk[/email]
From Times OnlineMarch 28, 2007
UK hits back over sailors detained by Iran
(Stefan Rousseau/PA)
Vice-Admiral Charles Style in front of nautical charts showing the exact position of the Marines and sailors when they were "ambushed"
Philippe Naughton
Britain moved to ratchet up the pressure on Iran today over what Tony Blair called its "illegal" seizure of 15 Royal Navy personnel in the Gulf last Friday, freezing all ties with Tehran until the crisis is resolved and the group released.
After five days of discreet but fruitless diplomacy, the offensive began with a press conference at the MoD at which Vice-Admiral Charles Style published satellite coordinates proving that seven Royal Marines and eight sailors were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were "ambushed".
He was backed up by the Prime Minister and by Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, who told MPs that Britain was immediately freezing all bilateral ties with Iran - except for contacts directly concerning the seized personnel.
"They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong," Mrs Beckett said.
Vice-Admiral Style, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, displayed nautical charts showing the position of the group when they were seized. Vice-Admiral Style said that their coordinates had been confirmed by the skipper of an Indian-registered merchant vessel that the sailors had just inspected when they were seized.
Leading Seaman Faye Turney, a 26-year-old mother, was the only woman in the group andTurkey’s private CNN Turk television network today quoted Iran’s foreign minister as saying Tehran would release a woman sailor detained with 14 other British servicemen “today or tomorrow”.
“The British woman soldier detained will be set free today or tomorrow,” it quoted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki as saying.
The Navy chief said that the group were engaged in routine anti-smuggling patrols under a UN Security Council mandate at the time, operating with the authorisation of Baghdad.
Vice-Admiral Style also accused the Iranians of having changed their story over the weekend after being told that the coordinates Tehran initially gave for the incident showed that the patrol boats were in Iraqi waters.
"It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," he said. "In any case, we unambiguously contest both coordinates given by the Iranians."
Minutes after the MoD press conference, the Prime Minister told the Commons that Britain was mobilising international support to show Iran how isolated it was. Mr Blair described the seizure as “completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal”.
Responding to a question from David Cameron, the Conservative leader, about the rules of engagement the patrols were operating under, Mr Blair said that the sailors and Marines could have used force in self defence. But he was was quite satisfied that they had taken the right decision in not drawing their arms after being surrounded by six heavily armed Iranian Republic Guard vessels.
"If they had engaged in military combat at the stage, there would undoubtedly have been severe loss of life," he said.
Mr Blair added by the time the crew of HMS Cornwall realised that the 15 had been detained and a Lynx helicopter dispatched to find them, they were already in Iranian waters - making intervention that much more dangerous.
The vice-admiral said that far from being inside Iranian waters, the two boats were 1.7 nautical miles - almost two land miles - inside the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which forms the border between Iran and Iraq.
Their exact postition - 29' 50.36" N, 048' 43.08"E - was confirmed by a Global Positioning System (GPS) on one of the small patrol boats that was displayed on the Cornwall. It had also been confirmed on a subsequent fly-past of the site.
In a statement to the Commons, Mrs Beckett said that the Government had tried to deal with the crisis through "private, but robust diplomacy". When the Iranians' mistake over the coordinates had been established, she had suggested to her Iranian counterpart that the situation "could be easily resolved" by releasing the detained Britons.
But it was now clear that a change of tack was needed. Accordingly, Britain was mobilising d Site is currently unavailable .Please come back later
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1579646.eceThe British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett returned to London early from a visit to Turkey after an inconclusive phone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Yep.....Beckett's on the case. Possibly the least competant Foreign Minister we've ever had.
Yep.....Beckett's on the case. Possibly the least competant Foreign Minister we've ever had.
So what is the next step? Maybe her and Condi could go to Iran and brow beat them to death with some girl scout cookies?
So what is the next step? Maybe her and Condi could go to Iran and brow beat them to death with some girl scout cookies?
Wow, nice touch of misogyny there.
Wow, nice touch of misogyny there.
That would be a bit of a reach. Not even a reach-around...:p
Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of misogyny SG?
Maybe he doesn't know the meaning of misogyny SG?
That or maybe you are an idiot.:rolleyes: Now how about that reach around.:D
Now seems like a perfectly good time for nuclear armageddon.
Now seems like a perfectly good time for nuclear armageddon.
I doubt it will come to that. The Brits strike me as being a bit more worldly and connected in the rhelm of dipomacy. Well then of course there was The Falkland Island War. :D
That's getting a lot of press with the 25th anniversary of the war coming up.
I was waiting for anyone to post what should have been obvious. First, Iran is not monolithic. It should have been obvious from details - even Iranians are infighting about what to do with these 15 Brits. Good reason to believe this was a minority response to point two.
Those in power who saw this could use it to settle early. But then we have 'big dic' attitude (ie Cheney) where the neighborhood bully must get what he wants. Upper are what strategic thinkers see. Lower 'big dics' can only see tactically and have no idea that their attitude only makes things worse.
Strategically, this trivial problem will go away with time. But if 'big dics' are not aggressively quashed, then this problem will fester.
Want to see how this plays out? Remember a silly spy plane incident? What happened once the 'big dics' were silenced? It took months because the 'big dics' in America started saber rattling.
Second, do you think this incident is isolated? Remember, the US kidnapped some Iranians who were invited into Iraq by Iraqi's government to setup what eventually was to be an emissary office (ie where Kurds can get Iranian visas). You may have forgotten them because Rush Limbaugh types were not promoting hate for their release. Iran has not forgotten their hostages held by America. Iran now has hostages to get their hostages released. This was going to happen because of American attitudes. A hostage trade that may eventually happen once the 'big dics' are held quiet long enough and so that you have forgotten about these hostages.
But again, this is really a non-event where people see a bigger picture (a strategic perspective) and saw the foolishness of America kidnapping those Iranian diplomats.
I heard this story on the radio this morning, nothing much new was said, and then the announcer said almost offhandedly that the US has sent two aircraft carrier groups into the gulf in response to this. Are there even two aircraft carrier groups in the region?
And after doing a quick google news search, I see that there are now 2 US carriers in the gulf, and a third is on its way to relieve one. There's also a French carrier there. The headlines of the mideast papers showing up in google news ask questions like, "will the US launch its attack on Iran when the 4th carrier arrives in the region?"
Yep, a nut couldn't hardly fire a missile without hitting something, something big, expensive, and flying a flag.
When Bush invaded Iraq it suited his and bin Laden's interests. It suits Ahmadinejad's interests to crank up the East / West tension to keep his people in line and I suppose the neo-cons want a mushroom cloud as well.
But notice that Mahmoud has not been running his mouth at all during this stand-off.
But notice that Mahmoud has not been running his mouth at all during this stand-off.
Has he figured out that our nuts are as crazy as his nuts?
Yep, a nut couldn't hardly fire a missile without hitting something, something big, expensive, and flying a flag.
Reminds me of a line from Hunt For Red October "Your aircraft have dropped enough sonar buoys so that a man could walk from Greenland to Iceland to Scotland without getting his feet wet..."
I'd love to see a high res picture of the gulf once 4 carrier groups are packed into it. Not to mention the commercial traffic and other military vessels.
Here's the Abraham Lincoln battle group during exercises in 2000.
Has he figured out that our nuts are as crazy as his nuts?
I think I was reading about this on the BBC yesterday. I think the Ayatollah knows that he has to keep Mahmoud muzzled for now to prevent a full-scale blow up. Deep down, I think they're afraid that the Americans/British will whoop their asses and so they're trying to be somewhat civil.
I really think this is one of those times when diplomacy, rather than the threat of force, has more chance of resolving the issue.
I really think this is one of those times when diplomacy, rather than the threat of force, has more chance of resolving the issue.
Good thing the Bush administration has placed such an emphasis on diplomacy and has assembled such a large group of skilled diplomats it can choose from.
Now seems like a perfectly good time for nuclear armageddon.
Tick, tick, tick.....
Can you see it? The US and Britain attack Iran from the gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Pakistan, Syria, and the Iraqi insurgents attack the rear of those forces. Who knows what Turkey might do - they're in NATO, but are an Islamic government. Maybe India will enter the conflict, just to stab Pakistan in the back. Russia is friendly with Iran....
WWIII? Armageddon? The Twilight Zone? :worried:
I think I was reading about this on the BBC yesterday. I think the Ayatollah knows that he has to keep Mahmoud muzzled for now to prevent a full-scale blow up. Deep down, I think they're afraid that the Americans/British will whoop their asses and so they're trying to be somewhat civil.
Yea, I read that too, here is the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6507451.stm
President missing
Iran officially says there is no connection between the detention of the British personnel and its own grievances.
But some hardline elements make a link between their release and other issues.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has faced domestic criticism
The Iranian authorities themselves are under mounting pressure domestically to ensure the release of the five Iranians held by the US military in Iraq, and hardliners are arguing that any release of the British sailors should be conditional on the release of the Iranians.
Noticeable by his absence in all this is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
From the Iranian side, the crisis has been managed by the country's Supreme National Security Council, the highest body dealing with such important matters.
Its decisions are approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, and all senior officials take part in its meetings.
President Ahmadinejad's silence may suggest that the clerical leadership is deliberately keeping him out of this matter in order to ensure that situation is not inflamed by his usual hardline rhetoric.
Who knows what Turkey might do - they're in NATO, but are an Islamic government.
Pretty secular government actually. I'd bet on them sitting it out or using it as cover to kill some Kurds.
Pretty secular government actually. I'd bet on them sitting it out or using it as cover to kill some Kurds.
The desire of Turkey to become part of the EU is stronger than thier desire to kill Kurds outside of thier border, and they would in no way support actions directly against the US. Inside thier border they have regular oppression. I doubt that they would move past that point.
Now seems like a perfectly good time for nuclear armageddon.
I'll add my vote for bombing them back into the stone age ... shouldn't take much, maybe just one or two suitcase nukes and it's over.
And after doing a quick google news search, I see that there are now 2 US carriers in the gulf, and a third is on its way to relieve one. There's also a French carrier there.
Posted in
What are we doing in Iraq?.
Meanwhile an Aircraft carrier task force is really quite impotent. Its more about hype. Its attack abilities without air tanker support (land bases) is short. Its influence is mostly emotional hype - little actual destructive power. Therefore the target must be small and especially important.
Meanwhile an Aircraft carrier task force is really quite impotent. Its more about hype. Its attack abilities without air tanker support (land bases) is short. Its influence is mostly emotional hype - little actual destructive power.
You are kidding? Right?
An aircraft carrier group can launch 70 aircraft nearly every 30 seconds and launch some 5000 cruise missles, multiply that time 2.
An aircraft carrier group can launch 70 aircraft nearly every 30 seconds and launch some 5000 cruise missiles, multiply that time 2.
Somehow TheMercenary actually believes those numbers are impressive? During the 1991 Gulf War, four carriers sat in the Persian Gulf. Marines that invaded Kuwait had zero air cover. Where was all that aircraft carrier might? Mythical. When Iraqis surprised the Marines on their left flank, what did the carriers do? Nothing. Marines saved their own ass. Swartzkopf personally said in that daily briefing that he "could not say enough about what the Marines did". Why? Four carriers did nothing to help Marines they were assigned to support.
Eventually, carrier forces were so pathetic as to be removed from most combat missions. Carriers consumed too much tanker support and achieved little. In fact, only 'most useful' functions in that war was an F-14 surveillance package which is why the Navy pilot "Stryker" got shot down in western Iraq, probably captured alive by Iraqis, and was never found.
OK. Carriers have improved abilities. And still its planes have limited range and are completely depended on land based tankers to achieve mission beyond a few hundred miles. What does just as good if not better? What almost toppled Saddam in 1998? Conventional ships and submarines with cruise missiles. Carriers expend so much effort just defending themselves as to be quite impotent. And without land based tankers, then carriers have extremely limited range. Well if the tankers are land based, then planes don't need carriers to launch from.
Why then have carriers? Hype. With 'big dic' thinking, those numbers sound impressive. From the strategic perspective, those carriers are less potent - have limited abilities.
Let's see. Shock and awe took out how many members of Saddam's family and the 52 most wanted characters on playing cards? Zero.
Where on a carrier is anything even approaching what an A-10 can do? Nothing. It planes have maybe ten minutes over a target when warriors need air cover that is available for four hours. Who wins a war? A '10 minute' navy plane - or the grunts? That ten minute air cover does what for those grunts?
What did all the work? Those grunts. Carriers are nothing more than support functions. Those who are easily impressed by numbers: a carrier is to be feared. Then we apply reality. Other things military are far more dangerous. How many carriers will it take to rescue 15 Brits in Tehran? How many carriers can take out bunkers where uranium is being processed? How many carriers can conquer a city or win a war? In each case, apply all the carriers and no objectives are achieved. Where is all this ability? Carriers cannot do anything that defines a military victory here. Carriers are only a support function that 'big dic' thinking never grasps.
Deja vue Nam. If we blow things up, then we will win. Well that was an outright lie promoted by those who also deny military principles from 500 BC. Carriers are nothing more than support function in the Middle East. Overhyped by 'big dics' who even and also forget the basic purpose of war. Marines had to breach Iraq lines to get into Kuwait without support from *four* carriers. How many know without first learning fundamental facts ... such as the purpose of war?
TheMercenary - for someone so enamored in military hype, why do you so easily fall for myths such as carrier power?
TheMercenary - for someone so enamored in military hype, why do you so easily fall for myths such as carrier power?
Because I know people who were on the ground in both Desert Storm 1 who flew off a carrier, now a Marine Col and a cousin of mine, and in the second Gulf War, numerous iterations. I have very good friends who were on the ground in the first 2 weeks of the Afgan Campaign that survived due to carrier based aircraft. The carrier based aircraft were critical in the opening weeks of both the Afgan Campaign and the first two weeks in the opening drive to Bagdad. Pretty simple, I have practical real world experience and you have left-wing talking points. Oh, and years of service on active duty, of which you don't appear to have any, unless you would like enlighten me with where you gain your fantasy wisdom.
2:1: Overt Air Strike by the United States or Israel by March 31, 2007.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200604/bombing-iranYoutube is blocked by my work filters. I can rarely see it.
Sorry to hear that, it is a good talk by Gen. William Odom.
If you get a chance you should look all of his stuff on Iraq and Iran up on YouTube, he is a smart man.
Sorry to hear that, it is a good talk by Gen. William Odom.
If you get a chance you should look all of his stuff on Iraq and Iran up on YouTube, he is a smart man.
I get off work in the am, I will check it out at home. Thanks.
Because I know people who were on the ground in both Desert Storm 1 who flew off a carrier, now a Marine Col and a cousin of mine, and in the second Gulf War, numerous iterations. I have very good friends who were on the ground in the first 2 weeks of the Afgan Campaign that survived due to carrier based aircraft.
Because you know someone or because a relative did nuclear physics, then you are also knowledgeable in advanced nuclear physics? Bull.
There were no carrier aircraft for Afghanistan if not for tankers from some 'unnamed' land base. Again, carrier was ineffective without land bases.
General Odom's comments come from a long list of Charlie Rose guests that are all talking about Iran including former Sec of State, generals, policy analysts, and ... well its been a parade for two weeks now.
In response to what Odom suggested, another lady with tremendous 'strategic' grasp notes a problem. The nuclear club is not isolated to one country. It occurs in bursts among equivalent neighbors. If Iran has a bomb, then Turkey must have one.
Worse is what the US is now doing to promote nuclear proliferation while spinning a message about stopping nuclear proliferation. The parade of analysts noted how America may cause the nuclear club to increase from 10 to 30. Except for the one that personally advices George Jr's administration, they were all critical of how American is encouraging nuclear weapon proliferation.
What does the world see? The US will 'Pearl Harbor' any nation that does not have nuclear weapons. The message could not be clearer because of a policy unique only to the George Jr administration - preemption. No other administration for 70 years was stupid enough to promote preemption. A nuclear Iran would be another example of why preemption (promoted by 'big dic' thinking) is so destructive to world stability.
Meanwhile, knowing someone in government or military does not induce knowledge. Worse, when that claiim is made, then lack of knowledge is often replaced by a political agenda and personal bias.
Meanwhile, knowing someone in government or military does not induce knowledge. Worse, when that claiim is made, then lack of knowledge is often replaced by a political agenda and personal bias.
You ignore my own direct connection which brings personal experience to the table. And as I asked before, what do you bring? Having personal connections to people who are on the ground or in the air in these conflicts may mean nothing to you, but I believe it beats the qualifications of someone who sits behind a computer with no real world practical experince in the issue.
There were no carrier aircraft for Afghanistan if not for tankers from some 'unnamed' land base. Again, carrier was ineffective without land bases.
This does not negate the effectiveness and superiority of the air power. It definately does not minimize the significant role played by ground support AC. I do believe the AC tanker support flies out of the US and the UK for support in both theaters of operation.
General Odom's comments come from a long list of Charlie Rose guests that are all talking about Iran including former Sec of State, generals, policy analysts, and ... well its been a parade for two weeks now.
I have not seen the video so cannot comment.
In response to what Odom suggested, another lady with tremendous 'strategic' grasp notes a problem. The nuclear club is not isolated to one country. It occurs in bursts among equivalent neighbors. If Iran has a bomb, then Turkey must have one.
Worse is what the US is now doing to promote nuclear proliferation while spinning a message about stopping nuclear proliferation. The parade of analysts noted how America may cause the nuclear club to increase from 10 to 30. Except for the one that personally advices George Jr's administration, they were all critical of how American is encouraging nuclear weapon proliferation.
Poppycock. The nuclear proliferation was propagated by Khan from Pakistan and most likely by the North Korean's. We have not been giving nuclear weapons to anyone. Both the Chinese and the Israeli's stole the technology from the US IMHO. Currently the failure of the Russian state to contain it's own resources is one of the greatest threats. The US had active programs to help the former satillite states of the USSR to dispose of thier n. weapons and those programs are well known.
What does the world see? The US will 'Pearl Harbor' any nation that does not have nuclear weapons. The message could not be clearer because of a policy unique only to the George Jr administration - preemption. No other administration for 70 years was stupid enough to promote preemption. A nuclear Iran would be another example of why preemption (promoted by 'big dic' thinking) is so destructive to world stability.
Your opinion, which I do not share.
lack of knowledge is often replaced by a political agenda and personal bias.
Which is exactly the position I believe you are in right at this very moment.
You ignore my own direct connection which brings personal experience to the table.
Experience without first learning underlying concepts and principles teaches nothing. Worse, conclusions from experience without those underlying concepts and principles results only in a political agenda - personal bias - little grasp of reality.
How many have seen a light bulb burn out when turned on? Conclusion is that turning on light bulbs causes the damage. Wrong. Completely and 100% wrong. An observation - that personal experience - without underlying science results in classic 'junk science' reasoning.
Since concepts such as tactical verse strategic are not grasped, then little was learned from that experience. Tactically the carrier is mostly a show of force - a support function that waves a big flag. Once one views what a carrier can do strategically and when one adds an underlying concept - the purpose of war, then it becomes obvious that the expensive weapon really has extremely limited abilities.
Junk science reasoning also concluded power on causes light bulb damage because of experience was confused with knowledge. "Common sense without both experience and those underlying concepts makes one his own worst enemy". Both are required to know something which is why so many with only personal experience still know so little.
The fact that you used others as proof of knowledge is a first symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge. But then the ability to understand a bigger picture - to see the same thing strategically - only comes to some with age. After having so much experience and still not learning, they eventually discover why they were not learning from their experiences.
Poppycock. The nuclear proliferation was propagated by Khan from Pakistan and most likely by the North Korean's. We have not been giving nuclear weapons to anyone. Both the Chinese and the Israeli's stole the technology from the US IMHO.
And again you are only posting a tactical perspective - only concluding from what you can see rather than learn why all this was happening.
Why has Russia stopped another program to minimize nuclear material proliferation? Did you know this and know why that program has been terminated? Why Russia terminated cooperation. To understand is not from simple observations about Khan. There is a far larger story here. Even America's deal with India is only promoting nuclear proliferation by those who cannot think beyond their nose.
'Big dic' thinking is typical of those who think tactically - cannot think strategically. That is why 'big dic' thinking always see solutions in preemption - even when history repeatedly demonstrates that is a politicy for long term empire destruction. Its not just opinion. It is fact that preemption is necessary even to create Armageddon.
Your comments so limited to Khan demonstrate thinking no farther than what is in front of your nose. Such thinkers are always enamored by 'big dic' solutions - preemption. The United States - mostly out of ignorance - an intellgence shortage made worse by political objectives - is promoting nuclear proliferation. To see it requires one to see more than current events.
Experience without first learning underlying concepts and principles teaches nothing. Worse, conclusions from experience without those underlying concepts and principles results only in a political agenda - personal bias - little grasp of reality.
How many have seen a light bulb burn out when turned on? Conclusion is that turning on light bulbs causes the damage. Wrong. Completely and 100% wrong. An observation - that personal experience - without underlying science results in classic 'junk science' reasoning.
Since concepts such as tactical verse strategic are not grasped, then little was learned from that experience. Tactically the carrier is mostly a show of force - a support function that waves a big flag. Once one views what a carrier can do strategically and when one adds an underlying concept - the purpose of war, then it becomes obvious that the expensive weapon really has extremely limited abilities.
Junk science reasoning also concluded power on causes light bulb damage because of experience was confused with knowledge. "Common sense without both experience and those underlying concepts makes one his own worst enemy". Both are required to know something which is why so many with only personal experience still know so little.
The fact that you used others as proof of knowledge is a first symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge. But then the ability to understand a bigger picture - to see the same thing strategically - only comes to some with age. After having so much experience and still not learning, they eventually discover why they were not learning from their experiences.
Well of course you could also just be full of crap. Your pontifications in no way supports your contentions. You have failed once again to use the facts commonly available to anyone with a computer. An education in Military Science, a college minor, is in fact a form of formal education in the subject matter at hand. Since you have failed to provide any form of credibility to your own experience will take that as an answer to my previous inquiries that you have none. I am putting up my 20 years of active duty against your anonymous ramblings from behind a keyboard without the courtesy to share what you may bring, through your own practical experience, to this discussion. Using others as proof of knowledge
is in fact how learning is passed down through the ages. For without the experiences of those who go before us we will make the same mistakes. All forms of education of about nearly any subject is gained through the sharing of personal experience from others so your premise that a "symptom of one who never understood what is necessary to have knowledge" fails in it's own right. :fumette:
Well of course you could also just be full of crap. Your pontifications in no way supports your contentions. You have failed once again to use the facts commonly available to anyone with a computer.
And then the post continues with personal attacks rather than address is issue. But again, a symptom so common among those whose solutiosn are found in 'big dic' thinking. Attack rather than learn. Destroy what feels bad. Deal with what can be seen rather than what is really there.
Such accusations are common among those who are somehow experts only because a uncle flew jets off a carrier or a father was a doctor. Knowledge only works that way when knowledge was not obtained.
And again you are only posting a tactical perspective - only concluding from what you can see rather than learn why all this was happening.
Why has Russia stopped another program to minimize nuclear material proliferation? Did you know this and know why that program has been terminated? Why Russia terminated cooperation. To understand is not from simple observations about Khan. There is a far larger story here. Even America's deal with India is only promoting nuclear proliferation by those who cannot think beyond their nose.
'Big dic' thinking is typical of those who think tactically - cannot think strategically. That is why 'big dic' thinking always see solutions in preemption - even when history repeatedly demonstrates that is a politicy for long term empire destruction. Its not just opinion. It is fact that preemption is necessary even to create Armageddon.
Your comments so limited to Khan demonstrate thinking no farther than what is in front of your nose. Such thinkers are always enamored by 'big dic' solutions - preemption. The United States - mostly out of ignorance - an intellgence shortage made worse by political objectives - is promoting nuclear proliferation. To see it requires one to see more than current events.
Your opinion is far from the reality on the ground. You make many
assumptions in an attempt to explain that you have some form of superior understanding of the strategic objective you believe that our government should and is in the process of achieving. I believe you are deluded by your political slant that all actions by the current government are evil and based on nefarious intentions. Again, I believe you are deluded as evidenced your assessments.
“big dic” has become your obvious mantra for all things related to military action at any point in the continuum of strategic military objective. It is a straw man diversion of the subject at hand, nuclear proliferation as propagated by third world nations who have no other objective other than to see the destruction of Western Civilization as we know it. All military action, be it local or on a global sense is in fact nothing more than the projection of strategic political objectives based purely on policy as proposed by which ever government entities happens to hold power in the US at the time of implementation. To imply that Armageddon is somehow part of any equation of achieving political or military objectives is fantasy. Your inability to understand how big a role Khan played in the proliferation of nuclear technology to many third world nations, and more specifically to those that were and are empathetic to the pursuit of the Muslim caliphate is telling about your understanding of global politics in the 21 Century. People who hold similar views to your own are placing the future stability at risk. I do not believe that we are actively engaged in any process of proliferation. Quite the contrary.
I am no apologist for Bush or the current administration. I am neither a supporter of the Democratic or Republican Parties. The mess in Iraq is the fault of the Bush Administration.
Please be more specific and less cryptic in your statements concerning the other Russian “program to minimize nuclear material proliferation”. Cryptic descriptions detract from the discussion. I was specifically referring to the removal by the US of weapons grade material from Uzbekistan and other former Soviet satellite states.
And then the post continues with personal attacks rather than address is issue. But again, a symptom so common among those whose solutiosn are found in 'big dic' thinking. Attack rather than learn. Destroy what feels bad. Deal with what can be seen rather than what is really there.
Such accusations are common among those who are somehow experts only because a uncle flew jets off a carrier or a father was a doctor. Knowledge only works that way when knowledge was not obtained.
Why don't you just answer the questions I have asked of you? What are your qualifications which provide you with such insight? You are obsessed with "big dicks". I have continually addressed the issues in every post. Please respond with something that lends credibility to your unique insight.
For those who have not read the history of Khan here are the links. They are really long articles.
How A. Q. Khan made Pakistan a nuclear power—and showed that the spread of atomic weapons can't be stopped
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/aq-khan
First Pakistan's A.Q. Khan showed that any country could have made a nuclear bomb. Then he showed—not once but three times—why the nuclear trade will never be shut down
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200601/aq-khan
Other souces on Khan's role in nuclear proliferation are readily avaliable on the web from a number of sources. I prefer The Atlantic because of thier history of award winning in depth reporting that has been recognized as having a balanced view of the issues reported.
A good summary of the current situation concerning the spread of nuclear technology
http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/reports/Civil_Nukes_Proliferation.pdf
Nothing better illustrates how,
so-called, peaceful nuclear technology can be used for military purposes than the activities of
the Khan network. Abdul Qaadeer Khan was able to build a global nuclear information
network and business which had access to supposedly secret uranium enrichment technology.
Using a mixture of legal and illegal transactions involving businesses all over the world,
ultracentrifuge enrichment technology was exported to Libya, North Korea and Iran. (5) Iran,
for example, despite being a signatory to the NPT, established a uranium enrichment
programme without informing the IAEA. So existing controls, legal arrangements and
guidelines failed to stop the export of sensitive nuclear technology.
To be fair the article does state:
Not every country with a nuclear weapons programme is a Party to the NPT. Israel, Pakistan
and India are all known to possess nuclear weapons, but none is Party to the Treaty. All three
have demonstrated the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Yet, astonishingly,
US President George Bush has recently agreed to help India with its nuclear energy
programme, undermining the very principle upon which the treaty is supposed to be based –
that assistance with the development of nuclear energy is available only to those who say they
will eschew nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT
encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa,
Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT
to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. If India can get help anyway, why bother
agreeing to do without nuclear weapons? Former US President, Jimmy Carter, called the deal
“just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation”. (9
Iranians release British sailors
---------------------------
Iranian media said the British crew 'shouted for joy' at the news
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.
He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain.
He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.
Downing Street welcomed news of the release, while Iranian state media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.
Television pictures showed the Iranian president smiling and chatting with the crew.
He joked to one: "How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?"
The Britons were wearing suits, rather than the military uniform and tracksuits they wore in previous pictures. The one female crew member, Faye Turney, wore a blue headscarf with dark pink shirt.
An unidentified crew member said: "I'd like to say that myself and my whole team are very grateful for your forgiveness. I'd like to thank yourself and the Iranian people... Thank you very much, sir."
Mr Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi: "You are welcome."
Mr Ahmadinejad announced the decision to release the Britons at a news conference marking Persian New Year.
He spoke at length, attacking the West over its policy in the Middle East, and it was more than an hour before he even mentioned the captives issue.
He repeated allegations that the Britons were captured in Iranian waters, and awarded medals to the Iranian commanders responsible for detaining them.
It was all part of the build up to his extraordinary theatrical gesture, says the BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.
"We have every right to put these people on trial," Mr Ahmadinejad asserted.
"But I want to give them as a present to the British people to say they are all free."
"I'm asking Mr Blair to not put these 15 personnel on trial because they admitted they came to Iranian territorial water," he added, referring to taped "confessions" made by the British sailors and marines.
Britain says the 15 were in Iraqi waters under a UN mandate when they were captured nearly two weeks ago. It says the confessions were extracted under duress.
"I ask Mr Blair: Instead of occupying the other countries, I ask Mr Blair to think about the justice, to think about the truth and work for the British people not for himself," Mr Ahmadinejad said.
"Unfortunately the British government was not even brave enough to tell their people the truth, that it made a mistake."
The Iranian leader said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged "that the incident would not be repeated".
The solution to the crisis - freeing the Britons while rewarding the Iranian commanders of the operation - appears to be a face-saving compromise, says the BBC's Francis Harrison in Tehran.
She says speculation is likely to continue over whether it had anything to do with developments in Iraq, where an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces, and where a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday.
Earlier on Wednesday Syria revealed that it had been mediating between Iran and the UK over the sailors and marines.
A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We welcome what the president has said about the release of our 15 personnel. We are now establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release."
The family of one of the captives, Royal Marine Adam Sperry, hailed the announcement as "the best present imaginable".
"Whoever has been in the right or wrong, the whole thing has been a political mess, so let's just get them home," said his uncle, Ray Cooper.
Thank goodness for that.
Just sabre rattling in the end.
Nice Government-bashing comments added by typical Hate Mail readers I see...
Nice Government-bashing comments added by typical Hate Mail readers I see...
I noticed that. So we are not alone.
Not alone in having conservative tabloid press?
Oh no, although the Mail is the worst of them.
Not alone in having conservative tabloid press?
Oh no, although the Mail is the worst of them.
Tabloid press that passes itself off as mainstream. We have that in the US among many major players.
Nah, the Mail doesn't present as mainstream if you actually get to see the real paper & ink, trust me. It really is known as the Hate Mail.
I admit it's better disguised on the internet because it does carry quirky stories and mostly unbiased headline articles.
One thing this site has made me appreciate is the Guardian (aka the Grauniad - thank you Private Eye). I didn't realise having a national liberal broadsheet was a luxury.
Glad this is over.
The British were mainly at fault but the Iranians made a bigger deal out of it then it should have been.
Glad this is over.
The British were mainly at fault but the Iranians made a bigger deal out of it then it should have been.
I'd be interested to know what you based this on?
The evidence I have sen suggests they were not in Iranian waters, were kidnapped, held hostage, paraded on television and letters were published espousing views unlikley to be held by them, and then we got a ticking off from their President for allowing mothers in our armed forces.
I can't see the British Govt acting in the same way if we happened to find 15 Iranians in a dirigible off the Isle of Wight.
The evidence I've seen points that it was in Iranian waters. I don't think the sailors apologies are definite proof but if we don't hear anything else in the next few days about it, it was probably was in Iranian waters. Also, I saw on a different article that the British sent a letter that said "it won't happen again".
Not to be condescending or anything but there is a chance your sources are going to bias since you live in the United Kingdom.
The Iranians gave one set of co-ordinates to start with, then being informed that this meant they were not in Iranian waters promptly changed the co-ordinates.
Also, at the British briefing the GPS information was made freely available - the Iranians relied on a man with a map and a pointer, with a GPS waved vaguely at the room.
And I certainly appreciate the sentiment that it won't happen again. Now the Iranians have shown that they are willing to undertake illegal acts on sailors close to the border, it's not worth getting close enough for it to be disputed. Na-ah, we're not letting you use our military personnel in your political in-fighting again.
I certainly appreciate that sources can be biased, but I don't rely completely on British media - hence why I'm here. I don't fully trust my Government either. But I can compare and contrast the rent-a-mob behaviour and think they had more to gain out of a stage managed hostage incident than we did.
The evidence I've seen points that it was in Iranian waters. I don't think the sailors apologies are definite proof but if we don't hear anything else in the next few days about it, it was probably was in Iranian waters. Also, I saw on a different article that the British sent a letter that said "it won't happen again".
Not to be condescending or anything but there is a chance your sources are going to bias since you live in the United Kingdom.
Are you for real?
Is PH45 is referring to the Craig Murray's Mail report that there is no agreed upon border in the gulf?
There is no agreed boundary in the Northern Gulf, either between Iran and Iraq or between Iraq and Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq border has been agreed inside the Shatt al-Arab waterway, because there it is also the land border. But that agreement does not extend beyond the low tide line of the coast.It is really difficult to tell who is right and telling the truth but from all I have seen it seems like the British sailors just made a mistake. I think there is more to the release then what they are showing now but I don't know how much significance it.
If the British sailors go against what they said earlier about being in Iranian territory then I will believe that Iran did go in Iraqi waters but if they are staying with that decision then they probably did stray into Iranian waters. The apology isn't definite proof but from what I have seen, no foul play seemed to have occurred with the apology.
About the missed coordinates, if Iran was going to perform an illegal capture then I would think that they would be extra careful to make sure they gave coordinates in Iranian waters. I don't find this argument very convincing. Also, I haven't heard anything about getting their officers back so I don't see why they would give them up this quickly.
As I said before, I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bullshitting us on the reasons for the release but that doesn't mean that they were wrong in the capture.
The evidence I've seen points that it was in Iranian waters. I don't think the sailors apologies are definite proof but if we don't hear anything else in the next few days about it, it was probably was in Iranian waters. Also, I saw on a different article that the British sent a letter that said "it won't happen again".
Not to be condescending or anything but there is a chance your sources are going to bias since you live in the United Kingdom.
If it was you wouldn't you tell them whatever they wanted to hear to get home and avoid spending the rest of your life in an Iranian prison? I'm not saying that they definetly weren't in Iranian waters, I don't know, but their confessions aren't just not "definite proof", they're no proof at all.
Let's not forget that GPS receivers are only as good as the way they are set up. I use a Garmin etrek when cycling (similar to the one displayed in the newspapers showing the claimed coordinates for this fiasco), and had to reset the reference co-ordinates as I would otherwise be directed about 10 metres left of the road I was on - which could be quite critical if it ran alongside a railway line.
So, just maybe (and I do mean maybe), the Iranians hadn't set up their GPS properly - result being that the co-ordinates might say 'this is Iran', but the reality could easily be 'this is Iraq'.
Could this actually happen...?
An anecdote that you may find interesting from the days of the Iraq/Iran war of the 80's. I was working at a shipbrokers even then, and it so happened that one of the tankers we had contracted out for a client loaded a cargo of jet fuel and then ended up discharging in Bandar Abbas, Iran at a time when the Iranians were well short of fuel to fly their military aircraft.
Next voyage the vessel loaded out of the Saudi Gulf port of Ras Tanura to carry a cargo east to Singapore.
As she moved through international waters towards Quoin Island and then out to the Indian Ocean she would have passed very close to Iranian waters and, as it happened she was attacked by an over-enthusiastic Iranian air force pilot clearly out to have a go at something now he had the means to fly his plane! An exocet or some such air dispatched missile shot straight through the bows and out the other side of the vessel - the vessel that had just delivered the jet fuel now in the attacking aircraft! Not the most sensible courses of action seeing how few vessels would entertain such business in the first place.
Luckily the missile failed to explode (not properly primed) and there was no loss of life, just an over-utilised toilet aboard the tanker!
So, given the error-strewn course of events I've related above in respect of Iranian competence, could they possibly have messed the set-up of their GPS...? - hmm, a tough one, eh?
Glad this is over.
The British were mainly at fault...
So you buy the Iranian version! :worried:
You have to be kidding me...:eek:
If it was you wouldn't you tell them whatever they wanted to hear to get home and avoid spending the rest of your life in an Iranian prison? I'm not saying that they definetly weren't in Iranian waters, I don't know, but their confessions aren't just not "definite proof", they're no proof at all.
If the sailors go back on their word then I will admit I am wrong (even though that isn't "definite proof" either).
Let's not forget that GPS receivers are only as good as the way they are set up. I use a Garmin etrek when cycling (similar to the one displayed in the newspapers showing the claimed coordinates for this fiasco), and had to reset the reference co-ordinates as I would otherwise be directed about 10 metres left of the road I was on - which could be quite critical if it ran alongside a railway line.
So, just maybe (and I do mean maybe), the Iranians hadn't set up their GPS properly - result being that the co-ordinates might say 'this is Iran', but the reality could easily be 'this is Iraq'.
Could this actually happen...?
So only Iran could have faulty GPS systems? And, yes, it is a good possiblity that either or both of them had faulty or tampered GPS systems.
I don't trust either country when it comes to this.
So you buy the Iranian version!
You have to be kidding me...
Wasn't the British with Bush on the "Iraq has WMDs, have ties to Al-Qaeda, and all of that other bull.
Neither of them are trustworthy and you can't blindly believe any side.
Neither of them are trustworthy and you can't blindly believe any side.
Trust the Iranians, or trust the Brits???? Hmmmmm.... not really difficult.
Oh yeah, cause the British are so trustworthy...
Stop being a drone and realize that neither side is "rightous".
I don't trust either country when it comes to this.
What about the captain of the Indian merchant vessel that the British had just boarded? He confirmed the co-ordinates that the British gave. Do you trust him?
So only Iran could have faulty GPS systems? And, yes, it is a good possiblity that either or both of them had faulty or tampered GPS systems.
I don't trust either country when it comes to this.
I see where you are coming from, but my point was more about competence than trust - i.e. a country that can try to sink an oil tanker without checking that the owner (usually identified by a great big symbol on the funnel) isn't one which is a supplier, and when it does come to attacking cannot prime its weapons properly, then that country doesn't look too much like it knows what it's doing or how to do it in the common-sense thinking department - setting a GPS properly might be a tad outside the successfully achievable zone.
Oh yeah, cause the British are so trustworthy...
Stop being a drone and realize that neither side is "rightous".
Believe what you want. Given the two choices I certainly believe that the British Government is more up front and honest than the Persians. I would go to bat for them and fight along them anytime. You give to much credit to the Iranians. They are no friend of anyone, least of all a western nation who is not muslim.
Just because they aren't friends of anyone doesn't mean they will lie every time.
I am not trying to come off as "I'm right and your wrong" because that would be hypocritical since neither of us can bring hard evidence of either side being right since both governments are trying to cover their asses.
I'll admit that you guys changed my stance from a slight pro-Iranian to dead middle but I'm still not finding anything convincing from either side.
[I wanted to edit that but my computer is going really slow]
I'll admit that you guys changed my stance from a slight pro-Iranian to dead middle but I'm still not finding anything convincing from either side.
There are three sides. The British, the Iranians, and the Indian ship that was boarded by the British. The Indian ship has confirmed the British story.
If the sailors go back on their word then I will admit I am wrong (even though that isn't "definite proof" either).
I will be surprised if they don't.
I'll admit that you guys changed my stance from a slight pro-Iranian to dead middle but I'm still not finding anything convincing from either side.
Why would you start off with a pro-Iranian stance?
I'm waiting for the tough questions. None of them brought back a watch up their ass.
Why would you start off with a pro-Iranian stance?
The latest sources I was looking at was more pro-Iranian and I didn't hear about some of the information.
To be fair to pierce, there really is no general reason to assume Britain to be telling the truth. In this case I happen to think we were.....but at the same time our government is as capable of lying and as willing to do so as any other government.
Great Live Interview on now with the sailors and marines. Tells a different tale, eh? Exactly what I would have expected.
Yep. Pretty much panning out as most people thought it would.
Yep. Pretty much panning out as most people thought it would.
Except that an original problem remains. Shatt al-Arab waterway changes. But what are Iran / Iraq waters remains subjective. Neither side has agreed to what is whose water or agreed to how law enforcement (ie searches for stolen cars) is to be conducted. That ambiguity still remains a potential if not the reason for this stand-off that (apparently) no one in high power on any side wanted.
Who was at fault or details of what happened remain secondary. Fortunately, those 15 Brits did not fight back - which is one reason why this stand-off could settle peacefully.
Generally speaking we make very polite [forced] guests :P
Considering how much coastline Iran has, I don't think they need to deter the Brits/UN in this little section to sneak anything into Iran. And if the Brits control the waterfront in this section of Iraq, this won't help sneaking anything into that country either.
The new and improved matériel appearing in Iraq could be coming over at any place, along thousands of border miles.
I see this as strictly posturing. The Iranians know the Brits care about 15 people, whereas Iran would blow up 15 of their own people without a second thought, if it served their purpose.
Fark headline: "Remember that time when we kidnapped your sailors, threatened them into making false confessions, and then let them go? Well, now it's time for you to do a favor for us"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/07/iran.sailors/index.html
Ambassador Rasoul Movahedian told the Financial Times newspaper that Iran had "showed our goodwill" by freeing the sailors.
"Now it is up to the British government to proceed in a positive way," he was quoted as saying on Saturday.
"We share in the British people's happiness and we believe it is the right time for the British government to affirm its willingness to establish sensible lines of communication with Iran," the ambassador was quoted as saying.
He said "the prime issue for Iran" was recognition from the West of its right to a nuclear power program.
Fark headline: "Remember that time when we kidnapped your sailors, threatened them into making false confessions, and then let them go? Well, now it's time for you to do a favor for us"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/07/iran.sailors/index.html
I about died laughing when I heard this on the news. I would tell them to Kiss My Big British Ass. :D
Or kill the 5, drag their bodies through the streets behind strykers, then burn them and hang them from a bridge.
Or kill the 5, drag their bodies through the streets behind strykers, then burn them and hang them from a bridge.
Works for me.
Begging for a Bombing
What should we make of the Iranians’ behavior?
By Victor Davis Hanson
It’s probably a good rule to do the opposite of anything the Iranian theocracy wants. Apparently, this government is now doing its darnedest to be bombed. So, for the time being, we should not grant them this wish.
In the last three years, the ranting adolescent theocrats in Tehran have alienated the United Nations’ Security Council to the point of earning trade sanctions. That’s a hard thing to do, given the U.N.’s bias toward the former third world and the way China and Russia value petroleum and trade above all else.
Prior to capturing last month 15 British military personnel, Iran had for years misled and embarrassed Britain, Germany, and France, who all tried to negotiate a peaceful end to Iranian nuclear proliferation. And as a rule, these are European nations that will suffer almost any indignity to talk a problem away.
It is also nearly impossible to offend the Russian government on any matter of law — except squelching on debts. Still, Iran even accomplished that. Moscow is withdrawing from the country its nuclear technicians, who are critical to Tehran’s efforts to obtain the bomb.
There is no need to mention Israel, which top Iranians have promised to wipe off the map — despite the fact that Israel is a nuclear power with a long record of military prowess. The Iranian leadership’s efforts to promote a radical Persian Shiite Islam have terrified nearby Sunni Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf monarchies that now detest Iran as much as they do Israel.
Our beef with Iran, of course, goes back well before George W. Bush’s presidency. “The Great Satan” as a slur for America was coined when Jimmy Carter was president. In 1979, student gangsters stormed the American embassy in Tehran and took hostages. Prior to 9/11, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization.
And by kidnapping last month the British sailors and marines, Iran de facto involved the European Union — Iran’s largest trading partner. The country’s leadership apparently worried little about retaliations from NATO, since their officers, according to one former top-ranking military official with whom I spoke, had been orchestrating the killing of Americans inside Iraq since well before Iranian vessels intercepted a British boat they claimed was in Iranian waters.
Those “realists,” like former Secretary of State James Baker, who insisted that we talk to Iran are now silent. Iran’s serial provocations seem to have finally turned off even those in the West who were always willing to give it a second and third chance.
What should we make of the Iranians’ behavior?
Namely that the country’s leadership is in deep political trouble. The Iranian government is desperate to provoke the West to win back friends in the Islamic world, and to quell growing unrest at home. Subsidizing food and gas, providing billions for terrorists and building nukes all cost money at a time when the state-run Iranian economy is in shambles.
Because of incompetence in their oil industry, the Iranian mullahs have achieved the impossible: Despite having among the world’s largest petroleum reserves, their production is shrinking and they have managed to earn increasingly less petrodollars even as the world price has soared.
While the Iranian theocrats understand that the entire world, including many of their own citizens, is turning against them, they also know that this could change if a Western nation would just attack them. Their strategy seems to be to find a way to provoke someone to drop a few bombs on them, on the naive assumption that such an assault would be of limited duration and damage. Such an attack, they may figure, would earn them sympathy in much of the world .
It is undeniable that the U.S., without either invading or suffering many casualties, could use its air power to send the Iranian economy and military back to the mullahs’ cherished seventh century. But there is no need to do so.
Instead, if the EU would cease all its trade with Iran, and if the West would divest entirely from the country — that is, boycott all companies that do any business with Tehran — the theocracy would face bankruptcy within months.
Even if further escalation were warranted, we could at some future date enforce a naval blockade of the Iranian coast that alone would determine what goods would be allowed into this outlaw regime.
But bomb Iran?
NRO Online
Or kill the 5, drag their bodies through the streets behind strykers, then burn them and hang them from a bridge.
How about gagging and tying them, putting them in a Royal Navy patrol boat, setting up an on-board PA system broadcasting a suitably worded message that the Iranians can go screw themselves if they think the British Navy is going to worry about being close to or even inside Iranian waters, and then setting them afloat more or less on the borderline between Iraq and Iran territories....
The 'Shatt al Arab' might just live up to its name...
Just an idea....
And by kidnapping last month the British sailors and marines, Iran de facto involved the European Union — Iran’s largest trading partner. The country’s leadership apparently worried little about retaliations from NATO, since their officers, according to one former top-ranking military official with whom I spoke, had been orchestrating the killing of Americans inside Iraq since well before Iranian vessels intercepted a British boat they claimed was in Iranian waters.
Could this be the new 'Curveball'? Curveball was the name of the intelligence source used as a basis for the Iraq invasion.
I don't think anyone would have as much luck invading Iran as they have had invading Iraq.
I don't think anyone would have as much luck invading Iran as they have had invading Iraq.
I think Britian and America could beat Iran but it would be a lot tougher than Iraq. Not only are they twice the size, a lot more advanced militarily and have a much bigger military, they are all on the same side.
That might actually make it easier. We wouldn't have to pretend we're doing it for the benefit of the Iranian people.
Well I was actually joking about having less luck. I wouldn't think it could possibly have gone worse for the US and it's allies with the Iraq invasion, but I guess that's just my opinion and not necessarily a fact.
Why is anyone even considering war as an option? These are silly little 'china spy plane' incidents that only 'big dic' thinkers even tried to promote into total war with mainland China. Notice one hyping this 'big dic' mentality is TheMercenary - which is so predictable because his solution to everything is violence.
Look folks. When it comes to credibility, none is currently lower than the US. The hypocrisy is stunning. Abu Ghriad. Guantanamo. No one can remain honest and can accept at face value anything from this US government (George Jr administration) says without shear and massive doubt. And Tony Blair is cast in that same shadow.
How do we solve this our more serious problem? We "bomb the fuck out of them". Classic 'big dic' thinking that only TheMercenary and UG would promote.
When it comes to five Iranians, well, they can declare they were tortured. Because of what America now stands for, they may be right. Does not matter. The world has plenty of reason to believe those iranians. Meanwhile words from 15 British sailors and marines also have little credibility because of Abu Ghriad, Guantanamo, etc. The world now regards even torture as standard MO by Americans. Worse, torturing any Anglo-American is no longer considered taboo throughout many parts of the world where Americans and British were once so much respected. This also because of 'big dic' posters like TheMercenary.
Of course 'big dics' like TheMercenary will tell us how the world always hates us. That is also necessary to promote hate and murder in a George Jr tradition.
The world now regards even torture as standard MO by Americans. Worse, torturing any Anglo-American is no longer considered taboo throughout many parts of the world where Americans and British were once so much respected.
This unfortunately true, I think. It's not just the Americans either tw. There have now been enough cases of Iraqis 'disappeared' by British forces, with their families ignorant as to whether they've died, or been incarcerated, only to have the body turn up later wth signs of brutality. I don't think it's our general MO, but it's happened enough to taint us with that image.
As for America's use of torture....British citizens have been held for upwards of two years and tortured in Guantanemo Bay. Other nationals are still there....five years and counting. Five years, held with no charge, no recourse to justice, no chance to explain, no chance to view the 'evidence' against them. Held in conditions which are dehumanising and frightening, subjected to sleep deprivation and 'mild' torture to ensure confessions (I know I'd telll them anything to make them stop. I'd give them any names I could think of it wouldn't matter whether that person was guilty or innocent). Five years. Think about that.
The two lads from Tipton and the one from Manchester spent two and half years in Guantanemo Bay and were eventually released with no charges. That's because they hadn't done anything. Like many of the unfortunate bastards in Guantanemo, they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Visiting Pakistan, crossed the border for a trip to somewhere (the two countries are very close and people hop across the border often)get caught up in the fighting and imprisoned by the Taleban.....then instead of the Americans liberatin those prisoners, they take them in as prisoners themselves.
There are cases of Iranian diplomats crossing into Iraq and being abducted and held by Coalition forces. Don't see much of that on the news.
There are also numerous cases of people going to the states and being taken into custody (why it's not certain, since they aren't allowed recourse to normal legal proceedings: therefore if it's a mix up on names there's no way for them to even know it, let alone prove they aren't who was being sought after) and then flown to other countries where torture is legal. One of these was a Canadian citizen who was on holiday in New York.
In Britain and Canada ( I don't know about other countries) Moslems and Indians are advised not to visit the United States unless they absolutely have to.
This isn't an American bashing gig. the UK and Europe are complicit in these acts. We have allowed planes, transporting prisoners to other countries for torture, to set down in Europe and refuel. In the UK, if someone is suspected of planning any kind of terrorist act they can be held without charge for a limited time. If a judge (note just a judge, there's no jury, no court, no chance to hear the evidence) decides that its in the country's interest that someone be incarcerated then they will be. If the judge decides that someone should be placed under house arrest, then they will be. The normal standards of evidence have been suspended. hearsay is enough.
Some things I have noticed about americans is they generally do not like the idea of torture unless they think it will save lives of their own people. Those involved in the abu ghraib were prosecuted and as for guantanamo bay, of course they are going to detain people they suspect as being involved in terrorism. America suffered a devastating attack from islam extremists so it is in their best interest to detain anybody they come across that might be involved with such terror groups. They even sentenced an american citizen to life in prison after they caught him fighting for the taliban and they were right to do so.
We "bomb the fuck out of them". Classic 'big dic' thinking that only TheMercenary and UG would promote.
This also because of 'big dic' posters like TheMercenary.
Of course 'big dics' like TheMercenary will tell us how the world always hates us. That is also necessary to promote hate and murder in a George Jr tradition.
For the record, I never stated in any post that we "bomb the fuck out of them", as tiny wennie posted.
Telegraph:
Buoyant Teheran warns of further kidnappings
Hardliners within the regime have been lining up to crow about Britain's humiliation, and indicated that the operation was planned.
Conservative parliamentarian Amir Hassankhani, a former member of the country's Revolutionary Guard and supporter of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told the country's semi-official Fars news agency: "The arrest and release of the British sailors proved that if Iran's issues and demands are overlooked at the international level, the Islamic republic can create different challenges for the other side."
The White House involvement in the hostages’ release has been confirmed. When the crisis broke, the US and Iraqi governments offered to help. Several initiatives were under way before the release, allowing officials to say that developments were coincidental.
First came the release last Tuesday of Jalal Sharafi, an Iranian diplomat missing in Iraq since February. A US administration source said he had been in a joint Iraqi and American facility, though this was denied by a British source.
On Wednesday the Red Cross was granted access to five Iranians who were detained by US forces in January in Iraq. Iran’s President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad announced the same day that the British captives could go home.
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, said yesterday that he was pressing the Americans to release the five Iranian detainees, or at least to transfer them to Iraqi custody.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1626726.eceMust-read:
formerhostage explains how US Marines dealt with being Iranian hostages in 1979
Co-operate with the Iranians and you get out in two weeks. Fail to do so and it takes 444 days.
Co-operation means you wear what they tell you to, say you were treated well, and apologize to the Iranian people while shaking Ahmadinejad's hand for the cameras.
Not co-operating means Iran doesn't get a photo-op, happy PR, and the ability to threaten to take more hostages later.
The British servicemen chose to co-operate.
Here is the choice made by the US Marines.
When we were first taken, the Iranians took us into a room individually and asked us to sign a statement denouncing the US policy in Iran, Israel, the Shah, etc. The Marines signed with names such as Michael Mouse, Chesty Puller, Dan Daly (google the last two...Marine Corps legends), Harry Butz, etc.
During the ordeal they would try to tape us for propaganda purposes. Personally, I would keep looking down to the ground or hide behind others so that my face wouldn't show (in fact, after a couple of months of not seeing me in any of the videos my records I was classified as MIA). Another Marine and I shared the same cell and when they came in with cameras we'd strip down. I heard a rumor that one of the other Marines smeared ketchup on his face and started howling.
They day before they released us, we were taken to a room with a camera and Mary the Terrorist who was going to interview us. We were threatened that if we didn't say the right things we wouldn't be released. Some Marines gave only name rank and SSN, others sang (Marine Corps Hymn or God Bless America), others just said nothing.
On the day they let us go, I was being herded towards the airplane by a couple of those monkeys. I pulled my arm out of their grasp and let them know that "We're number one"...but used the wrong finger.
For our troubles we were isolated, thumped, went through two mock executions, starved, threatened, and had to put up with useful idiots from Amnesty International showing up just to let the world know how humane we were being treated.
Personally, I would co-operate. But I'm not a Marine. They are better men than I.
On the day they let us go, I was being herded towards the airplane by a couple of those monkeys. I pulled my arm out of their grasp and let them know that "We're number one"...but used the wrong finger.
It was respectable until this.
Iran plays extremely dirty but to refer them as monkeys is uncalled for and immature.
as for guantanamo bay, of course they are going to detain people they suspect as being involved in terrorism. America suffered a devastating attack from islam extremists so it is in their best interest to detain anybody they come across that might be involved with such terror groups. They even sentenced an american citizen to life in prison after they caught him fighting for the taliban and they were right to do so.
There is a vast difference between catching someone fighting for the enemy.....and merely suspecting them. Just because America suffered a devastating attack, does not mean they should be able to detain people for years at a time, with no evidence, merely because they happened to be in the vicinity. If they were enemy combatants, they should be treated as such. If they are not enemy combatants they should be dealt with in the judicial system, and able to form a defense against what may just be a false charge.
It was respectable until this.
Iran plays extremely dirty but to refer them as monkeys is uncalled for and immature.
You do the time. If you're going to play the empathy game, put yourself in the Marines' boots for a minute. They didn't create the mess in Iran.
That's very true. I cannot imagine I could go through something like that and walk away with no anger at all.
Some things I have noticed about americans is they generally do not like the idea of torture unless they think it will save lives of their own people. Those involved in the abu ghraib were prosecuted and as for guantanamo bay, of course they are going to detain people they suspect as being involved in terrorism.
[SIZE="3"]
America suffered a devastating attack from islam extremists so it is in their best interest to detain anybody they come across that might be involved with such terror groups.[/SIZE]
They even sentenced an american citizen to life in prison after they caught him fighting for the taliban and they were right to do so.
Hello duck duck, welcome to the cellar.
You've packed quite a lot into your short post there, which I edited for emphasis, because I want to talk about that middle part, but I didn't want to quote you without context.
Detain? Ok, I guess. But I have some questions for you. Sure, we Americans have "best interests", but *how* those interests are served is open to debate and the differences are CRUCIAL. Let me ask you to clarify some of those points.
You say "detain anybody". Anybody? How do you propose to decide who should be detained? Please fill in this big blank.
You also say "detained", as though the word is detached from its real world effect. All the attackers you alluded to earlier were present in the United States, so I ask you, what do you mean by "detain"? Arrest? Imprison? Abduct? Hold without charge? What is your position on extraordinary rendition?
You also say "might be involved with such terror groups", a comfortably broad and noble sounding phrase (if you're on the "good guys" side), but one that is begging for a little more precise definition for those of us who consider our nation's strength is based on our longstanding respect for and tradition of the rule of law.
I'll temporarily hold back my questions on your comments regarding torture.
I look forward to your reply.
extraordinary rendition
http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/faculty/workingpapers/sadat/ghostprisoners_s2006.pdf
So in other words it means they move prisoners from one nation to another nation that has no laws against torture?
Age:
16
Biography:
I'm a simple person that views the world in simple terms.
Location:
over here
Interests:
cooking, shopping, reading
Your age and your "biography" speak volumes about the basis of your posts in this thread. Specifically, you come across as young and naive. You, at least, have these as reasonable excuses for your gross oversimplification of the circumstances under discussion. Sadly, many who feel as you do have no such excuse.
It's all very simple to me, if you come across somebody suspicious in the combat zone then you detain them to determine who they are and what exactly they were doing there. You also detain anybody who you suspect has ties with terrorist organizations. In example if you see somebody speaking out in favor of al'queda or praising the attacks then it would be a good idea to detain, arrest, abduct, lock up or whatever your favorite choice of words are.
So you are talking about the rules of engagement in a combat zone. That is *not* my area of expertise. But I'll tell you this: if you get painted into the corner of responding the way you describe, you will empty the country. You may as well put a barbed wire fence on the borders complete with guard towers, because the suspicions are **HIGH** in those situations. Everybody's a suspect, and it is not possible to respond the way you describe. Shoot, if you
don't have some level of suspiciousness of the people on the street, you're probably not paying enough attention.
As a domestic issue, an American issue, such actions are neither legal, nor effective, nor helpful. We outgrew those days (more than once, to our credit, witch trials and lynchings come to mind), and I pray we'll outgrow our current reactionary fears once more.
Ok I don't know what extraordinary rendition means but the war against terrorists isn't about only catching those who planned the 911 strikes but it's about going after those who support and promote the ideology that is behind it, or at least it should be. They should be shutting down or locking up anybody that speaks out in favor of any radical muslim group.
This whole political correctness mentality concerning this war is foolish at best. You lock up a suspected terrorists to determine if he is a threat, you don't give them a jury and a lawyer that will find loopholes to get him off. In other words you do not treat him like a domestic criminal.
Gawd. "the war against terrorists"? Please, everybody, just
stop drinking the kool-aid, m'kay? I'm sick sick sick of hearing about the GWOT or the TWAT or the TIAP etc etc. We do agree on this, however unlikely that accident may be, that the additional goals of the "war" should be that our ideology be chosen over any that promote death and destruction. It is absolutely tragic that such a distinction is now difficult to discern by so many. We agree on the end, but not the means.
Your means is doomed to failure. Your suggestion that we bludgeon our enemies into not hating us will not succeed. Can not succeed. Here's a news flash for you. The central theater of the GWOT is exactly where people were locked up, no trial, no lawyers, no questions. It is THE current <strike>fig leaf</strike> reason we're still there; "It'll be chaos if we leave!!" It's why we went; "Sadaam is a despot!" Your suggestions would have us become what we sought to destroy. No thank you.
Since when has your nation had a long standing respect for the rule of law? Your judicial system is a joke and your country has ignored it's own laws since they were first written, especially in war time.
It seems now americans and british are more concerned about not offending somebody than they are about wiping out radical terror.
Now you're just being stupid. We'd had more than 200 years of the rule of law before your dad ever met your mom. Pay attention. If you're just gonna call names, we'll soon tire of each other. That'll be fine too, but if you want a dialog, at least check your facts before you open your mouth.
I'm confused--how is our complete disregard for our own laws manifesting itself as concern for not offending somebody? What?! As to wiping out radical terror--sure, I'll get right on that. Utterly Sisyphean (look it up yourself). Like trying to wipe out stupidity.
haha I knew this would degenerate to you or somebody else insulting me which is why I deleted my post. And where have I called you names?
Where was your wonderful tradition of the rule of law when you rounded up 120,000 japanese american civilians during world war 2 because you thought they were going to sabotage installations on the west coast?
If you were just interested in calling me stupid and insulting me then you should have done that on my first post because then I wouldn't have bothered replying to you.
Are you seriously suggesting that America does not have a longstanding respect for the rule of law? If you are, then you are stupid. If you are not, then you're calling names. You pick.
Since when has your nation had a long standing respect for the rule of law? Your judicial system is a joke and your country has ignored it's own laws since they were first written, especially in war time.
Where was your wonderful tradition of the rule of law when you rounded up 120,000 japanese american civilians during world war 2 because you thought they were going to sabotage installations on the west coast?
America suffered a devastating attack from islam extremists so it is in their best interest to detain anybody they come across that might be involved with such terror groups.
Explain to me the difference, between America 'defending' its interests by detaining people it thinks are terrorists and America 'defending' its interests by detaining people it thinks will commit acts of sabotage?
As far as I can see both are unfair.
Are you seriously suggesting that America does not have a longstanding respect for the rule of law? If you are, then you are stupid. If you are not, then you're calling names. You pick.
Are you capable of having a discussion without insulting people and accusing them of name calling when they didn't? If not then why do you bother?
Explain to me the difference, between America 'defending' its interests by detaining people it thinks are terrorists and America 'defending' its interests by detaining people it thinks will commit acts of sabotage?
As far as I can see both are unfair.
There is no difference. In both cases they ignored their long standing respect for the rule of law and did what they thought was in their best interest fair or not.
I can't touch that. I concede the point to DanaC, and I yield the field.
The shattering cognitive disconnect between these two posts shows the positively galactic hypocrisy of this kind of thinking. And what makes it even more tragic, is the broad, unthinking support this kind of sloppy weak lazy pathetic excuse for thinking has.
But.....Duck Duck, you just said that they were justified in detaining those they suspected of being terrorists....now I am confused.
So you're a hypocrite and I can't communicate with you. I don't speak your language and I have only a halting command of others' expressions of it.
I challenge you to answer my question. Pick one. Serious or not serious.
Then, the bonus round, reconcile the contradiction of your own words presented to you by DanaC.
I'll wait.
I can't touch that. I concede the point to DanaC, and I yield the field.
The shattering cognitive disconnect between these two posts show the positively galactic hypocrisy of this kind of thinking. And what makes it even more tragic, is the broad, unthinking support this kind of sloppy weak lazy pathetic excuse for thinking has.
I find this quit funny considering your idea of a "dialogue" is calling somebody stupid because they do not share your opinion.
But.....Duck Duck, you just said that they were justified in detaining those they suspected of being terrorists....now I am confused.
To clarify, I'm not condemning the americans for detaining the japanese in WW2, I brought that up to point out the flawed claim that america has this long standing tradition for the rule of law. They have been know to suspend their laws in many cases like in national emergencies or in war time.
I think duck duck's original point was that of course detaining is technically against the law, but that's okay because we've always ignored the law, e.g. the Japanese in WWII.
So you're a hypocrite and I can't communicate with you. I don't speak your language and I have only a halting command of others' expressions of it.
I challenge you to answer my question. Pick one. Serious or not serious.
Then, the bonus round, reconcile the contradiction of your own words presented to you by DanaC.
I'll wait.
Can you find somebody else to troll? Are you really that bored?
Are you capable of having a discussion without insulting people and accusing them of name calling when they didn't? If not then why do you bother?
Sure! In fact, I have a reputation on this board for not calling names. There are (counts on fingers....) about 1 1/2 exceptions. You're not even on that list. I'd love to have such a discussion. But neither do I pander or patronize. I show my fellow dwellars the respect of taking their posts seriously, and responding accordingly. My posts were not insults of commission or omission. You post serious, I post serious back.
Can you find somebody else to troll? Are you really that bored?
Kid, I like you, I really do...but you've been here like five minutes and you've just accused a longstanding member of trolling, just because he called you out. That's really bad form.
Sure! In fact, I have a reputation on this board for not calling names. There are (counts on fingers....) about 1 1/2 exceptions. You're not even on that list. I'd love to have such a discussion. But neither do I pander or patronize. I show my fellow dwellars the respect of taking their posts seriously, and responding accordingly. My posts were not insults of commission or omission. You post serious, I post serious back.
You called me stupid because I have opinions you don't like. Now you are implying I can't possibly be serious because you do not like my opinions. So that is one blatant insult fallowed by another you try to cleverly hide.
Looks like you just blew your reputation.
Kid, I like you, I really do...but you've been here like five minutes and you've just accused a longstanding member of trolling, just because he called you out. That's really bad form.
I accused him of trolling since he resorted to insults because he doesn't like my opinion. And he continues to insult me because I'm standing up to him about it.
I think duck duck's original point was that of course detaining is technically against the law, but that's okay because we've always ignored the law, e.g. the Japanese in WWII.
Maaaaaaaybe. Let's try that one out a little.
My WHOLE point is that arbitrarily locking up people, on suspicion of the potential for some future crime, whether it was during the WWII era or the GWOT era, is wrong. It's wrong to do it and the only thing that rights the ship of state from that perilous course is exactly the rule of law.
The concept that we are a nation of laws; that the laws are supreme, not some particular skin color or nation of birth, or any other arbitrary circumstance.
under the rule "of" law, no one is above the law, not even the government. The core of "rule of law" is an autonomous legal order. Under rule of law, the authority of law does not depend so much on law's instrumental capabilities, but on its degree of autonomy, that is, the degree to which law is distinct and separate from other normative structures such as politics and religion. As an autonomous legal order, rule of law has at least three meanings. First, rule of law is a regulator of government power. Second, rule of law means equality before law. Third, rule of law means procedural and formal justice
It is this "longstanding respect for the rule of law" that I speak of. Without it, where could corrections come from,
like this:
On September 27, 1992, the Amendment of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, appropriating an additional $400 million in order to ensure that all remaining internees received their $20,000 redress payments, was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush, who also issued another formal apology from the U.S. government.
The internment of the Japanese during WWII was legal. It was made so by Executive Order. The actions you suggest also are legal, covered by the PATRIOT Act. Years later, it has been decided that the internment was wrong. It will probably take years for the same conclusion to be reached about the actions justified by the PATRIOT Act. But you're hearing it from me, and a growing number of citizens, early.
You called me stupid because I have opinions you don't like. Now you are implying I can't possibly be serious because you do not like my opinions. So that is one blatant insult fallowed by another you try to cleverly hide.
Looks like you just blew your reputation.
Duck Duck, get use to it, that is a fairly typical response on here. Stay the course.
Duck Duck, get use to it, that is a fairly typical response on here. Stay the course.
Nah, with the exception of the occasional dumb question, I think I will avoid political discussions from now on. I didn't join this site to be called stupid, I get that often enough at school.
Ouch. Duck don't take it to heart. This is a rough and tumble place. People call each other out on stuff and occasionally hand out a cup of stfu. It's just the way the Cellar works.
Got to admire duck for jumping in with both of his/her webbed feet. :)
Her. *smiles* take a looksee at her profile;P
I do actually admire her for jumping in. But.....when jumping in and making quite bold, and some might venture agressive, posts she needs to expect to be tackled on them. BigV wasn't as hard on her as many here are when someone makes those kinds of statements.
But can't you challenge somebody's opinion, bold or not, without resorting to insults? Do the politicians in the congress sessions yell to each other "you're stupid" when they are discussing policy? Is civility impossible here?
Do the politicians in the congress sessions yell to each other "you're stupid" when they are discussing policy?
Ha ha, they say worse things than that!
duckduck, you don't think
Originally Posted by duck_duck
Since when has your nation had a long standing respect for the rule of law? Your judicial system is a joke and your country has ignored it's own laws since they were first written, especially in war time.
It seems now americans and british are more concerned about not offending somebody than they are about wiping out radical terror.
is a little inflammatory?
duckduck, you don't think is a little inflammatory?
Maybe it is but it isn't a personal attack on another person. If somebody posts an opinion I don't like on a subject I'm not going to respond by calling him stupid or questioning his intelligence. What would be the point?
What if you think what they posted was really dumb? :P
Give her a few weeks, she'll be flaming like a good'un