War on Iran

Published by You on 11 February, 2007 - 16:12
64 posts / 0 new
Post reply
Last post
Submitted by Dave on 28 March, 2007 - 16:01

"Admin" wrote:
It was never about the war, which the American coalition would have won anyway.

it was about the bigger picture which has not been established.

Even againstr Iran, America will probably trounce them in any conflict if there was one, but the bigger picture matters.

Would it matter if that happened? would they be able to have a government that found them acceptable? Would be safer or more dangerous for the average American? would it be cheaper or more expensive?

Getting rid of the baathists was a mistake. Everyone who was anyone was baathist, if they wanted to be or not. It created a power vacuum, which eventually led to some of the violence.

Najaf could have been pacified without the violence. Afterall the violence started after street protesters protesting FOR security were shot down. A year later Americans were lynched from the streets.

Yes, America won the war, but they never got what the supporters really wanted.

Well, yea - it seems like war is about 10% military 90% spin these days. Militarily we won in Bosnia, in effect we accomplished nothing, and we spun it to make it seem like we won.

Thus the reason six years later Serbia doesn't recognize Kosovo, armed mobs attack serb and muslim alike, and new "Arkans" are showing up every day.

I suspect as far as Iraq is concerned we won militarily, it's yet to be seen if we accomplished the political objectives we wanted to accomplish, and we are not winning the spin war.

Either way, it seems to me at this point that after the military solution has been accomplished it's time to send the military home and start fighting on the spin front.

Submitted by You on 28 March, 2007 - 16:06

Just a fyi

My original point was actually a counter to Malik, who implied America had "lost" - and the Iraqi's won. I was just saying you can't call it a victory for Iraqi's, even if all the objectives of the occupation were not met.

In thje same way I am not too bullish about Iran's chances. It can;t even strike back apart from hitting America's proxies.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by Dave on 28 March, 2007 - 16:09

"Admin" wrote:
Just a fyi

[b]My original point was actually a counter to Malik[/b], who implied America had "lost" - and the Iraqi's won. I was just saying you can't call it a victory for Iraqi's, even if all the objectives of the occupation were not met.

In thje same way I am not too bullish about Iran's chances. It can;t even strike back apart from hitting America's proxies.

I know, but I thought you made a good point that made me rethink my rather simplistic analysis of the situation so I amended what I said.

Submitted by You on 28 March, 2007 - 16:18

I made a good point?

:shock:

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by You on 31 March, 2007 - 17:46

What plonkers!

Quote:
[size=18]Navy captives 'face legal action'[/size]

Legal action is being taken against 15 Royal Navy personnel held captive by Iran for "entering Iranian waters", a senior Iranian diplomat has said.

Gholamreza Ansari, Iran's ambassador to Moscow, said "legal process" had started but denied reports which quoted him saying the group may face trial.

The UK government says the captives were seized in Iraqi waters and is demanding their "immediate" return.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has sent a written response to Iran.

Iran's official IRNA news agency earlier carried a report saying the envoy had told Russian television that legal moves against the 15 had already started and that there was a possibility they could stand trial.

But the agency later quoted Mr Ansari saying the television channel had made a "translation mistake" when quoting him saying the group could face charges and a trial.

[b]Raid[/b]

Britain denies Iran's claims that the UK crew was in its waters when seized on 23 March.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "Our position has not changed. We have made it clear that they were inside Iraqi waters and we want them returned immediately."

Mrs Beckett said she had replied to a letter from the Iranian government, but no detail of the contents was given.

The Iranian letter had not suggested Tehran was looking for a solution to "this difficult situation" and the fact that it was a holiday period in Iran was "not too helpful", she added.

Speaking later at a European Union meeting in the German city of Bremen, Mrs Beckett stressed the British government wanted the situation resolved quickly.

"What we want is a way out of it - we want it peacefully and we want it as soon as possible.

"We would like to be told where our personnel are - we'd like to be given access to them, but we want it resolved."

She said she was "concerned" about claims by Mr Ansari that the British personnel could face legal action.

"I don't think it's helpful to Iran, I don't think it's helpful to our detainees - I think that is not the tone really that I would wish anyone to strike," she added.

Earlier, US state department spokesman Sean McCormack rejected suggestions that a swap could be made for five Iranians captured in Iraq by US forces in January.

The Iranians, believed to be members of the Revolutionary Guard, were taken in a raid in the city of Irbil, along with equipment which the Americans say shows clear Iranian links to networks supplying Iraqi insurgents with technology and weapons.

[b]'Parading'[/b]

US officials have condemned Iran's actions over the 15 Navy personnel and publicly supported the UK.

Mr McCormack said: "The international community is not going to stand for the Iranian government trying to use this issue to distract the rest of the world from the situation in which Iran finds itself vis-a-vis its nuclear programme."

Prime Minister Tony Blair has criticised Iran for "parading" the UK crew on television in a way which would only "enhance people's sense of disgust".

But a former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, Said Rajai Khorasani, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme Mr Blair had been too "authoritative" in his approach.

He added: "He could have said for instance, 'Well, even if there is possibly a mistake, in the light of good relations between the two countries, I hope that you will facilitate their release.'

"I mean that's a more friendly - let's say phraseology - than dictating, you know, immediately and unconditionally, and so on and so forth."

[b]'Sacrificed'[/b]

In what appeared to be an edited broadcast on an Iranian channel on Friday, captured sailor Nathan Thomas Summers said: "I would like to apologise for entering your waters without permission."

He was shown alongside two colleagues, one of whom was Leading Seaman Faye Turney, from Shropshire, who had been broadcast apologising to Iran earlier in the week.

A letter, allegedly from LS Turney, was released on Friday in which she said she had been "sacrificed" to UK and US government policy.

European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Bremen, Germany, called for "the immediate and unconditional release" of the sailors and expressed "unconditional support" for Britain's position.

The BBC has been able to confirm the names of six of the 15 captured sailors and marines.

Along with LS Turney and Nathan Summers, who is from Cornwall, they are Paul Barton from Southport, Danny Masterton from Ayrshire, Joe Tindall from south London and Adam Sperry from Leicester.

The Britons, based on HMS Cornwall, were seized by Revolutionary Guards as they returned from searching a vessel in the northern Gulf.

[url= News[/url]

It's like watching a small child play with a knife.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by yashmaki on 31 March, 2007 - 19:13

this has been going on since last week i think...

It's not as simple as a dispute over the border line, Iran are using it in defiance for Iranians that have been captured by American forces in Iraq. Latest news from Iran they'll exchange the naval personnel for the Iranian captives. Of course USA said no deal.

I personally think the USA should keep it's nose out of this one. Iran has only now made demands on the USA coz they were interfering trying to be diplomatic or something i duno.

The Iranian gov knows British resources are stretched, so the possibility of attack is very unlikely, that's why they're playing cat and mouse with these captives. Also regardless of who says where the border is the fact is Brits shouldn't have strayed anywhere near that border, knowing how volatile that region is. They have state of the art navigation systems so it's not a simple case of oops we came too close to your border. If iranians had done the same on british waters do you think they'd be let off so lightly i think not. Espionage is always a possibility, so why treat this any differently?

A lot of brits on radio have made some really ignorant, racist comments in rage at the Iranians, like nuke them, or arrest all iranians living in the UK, that sounds so irrational. It's like saying you stole my lollipop give me it back or ill beat you, grow up ppl. We need calm and diplomacy in a situation like this. There's no need for war it's too petty a reason. Unfortunately the Brit gov is refusing to admit it's mistake, i think they should just agree there's been some misunderstanding eat humble pie and get your personnel out alive, is there any point in being arrogant over this?

The iranian gov is just as arrogant but they have leverage brits don't someone has to be seen to be backing down. I don't think it would make Brit seem as a weak force in the world, and so what if it does doesn't blair want these ppl back alive, or is he willing to have them killed to save face?

Iranians have been criticised for getting forced confessions out of the captives, like signed letters admitting they went over the border. There;s also been a lot of controversy coz the only female captive was made to wear a headscarf. Well i don't agree with force but some have said these ppl have had their human rights abused. It seems as though they have been looked after well though the female captive suggested so and she looked very well considering all that she's been through. But we won't know the truth until these ppl return home and give interviews.

Submitted by You on 31 March, 2007 - 19:22

I understand it all, but playing with fire can burn you.

And if they are only using it as defiance, they should know pride comes before the fall.

I am not asking for special treatment, but normal proceduer would be top beat your horn, make alot of noice etc and then release them after getting some assurances etc.

Putting the soldiers on trial is not something that can eb backed dopwn from lightly.

Besides the brits are disputing the l;ocation of the soldiers, so we really do not know where they were.

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by Ya'qub on 31 March, 2007 - 21:34

Quote:
I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.
 
It is also unacceptable that these British captives should be made to talk on television and say things that they may regret later. If the Iranians put duct tape over their mouths, like we do to our captives, they wouldn't be able to talk at all. Of course they'd probably find it even harder to breathe - especially with a bag over their head - but at least they wouldn't be humiliated.

And what's all this about allowing the captives to write letters home saying they are all right? It's time the Iranians fell into line with the rest of the civilised world: they should allow their captives the privacy of solitary confinement. That's one of the many privileges the US grants to its captives in Guantanamo Bay.
 
The true mark of a civilised country is that it doesn't rush into charging people whom it has arbitrarily arrested in places it's just invaded. The inmates of Guantanamo, for example, have been enjoying all the privacy they want for almost five years, and the first inmate has only just been charged. What a contrast to the disgraceful Iranian rush to parade their captives before the cameras!
 
What's more, it is clear that the Iranians are not giving their British prisoners any decent physical exercise. The US military make sure that their Iraqi captives enjoy PT. This takes the form of exciting "stress positions", which the captives are expected to hold for hours on end so as to improve their stomach and calf muscles. A common exercise is where they are made to stand on the balls of their feet and then squat so that their thighs are parallel to the ground. This creates intense pain and, finally, muscle failure. It's all good healthy fun and has the bonus that the captives will confess to anything to get out of it.
 
And this brings me to my final point. It is clear from her TV appearance that servicewoman Turney has been put under pressure. The newspapers have persuaded behavioural psychologists to examine the footage and they all conclude that she is "unhappy and stressed".
 
What is so appalling is the underhand way in which the Iranians have got her "unhappy and stressed". She shows no signs of electrocution or burn marks and there are no signs of beating on her face. This is unacceptable. If captives are to be put under duress, such as by forcing them into compromising sexual positions, or having electric shocks to their genitals, they should be photographed, as they were in Abu Ghraib. The photographs should then be circulated around the civilised world so that everyone can see exactly what has been going on.
 
As Stephen Glover pointed out in the Daily Mail, perhaps it would not be right to bomb Iran in retaliation for the humiliation of our servicemen, but clearly the Iranian people must be made to suffer - whether by beefing up sanctions, as the Mail suggests, or simply by getting President Bush to hurry up and invade, as he intends to anyway, and bring democracy and western values to the country, as he has in Iraq.


[b]Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python[/b]
—

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Submitted by Dave on 2 April, 2007 - 02:08

"yashmaki" wrote:
this has been going on since last week i think...

It's not as simple as a dispute over the border line, Iran are using it in defiance for Iranians that have been captured by American forces in Iraq. Latest news from Iran they'll exchange the naval personnel for the Iranian captives. Of course USA said no deal.

I personally think the USA should keep it's nose out of this one. Iran has only now made demands on the USA coz they were interfering trying to be diplomatic or something i duno.

The Iranian gov knows British resources are stretched, so the possibility of attack is very unlikely, that's why they're playing cat and mouse with these captives. Also regardless of who says where the border is the fact is Brits shouldn't have strayed anywhere near that border, knowing how volatile that region is. They have state of the art navigation systems so it's not a simple case of oops we came too close to your border. If iranians had done the same on british waters do you think they'd be let off so lightly i think not. Espionage is always a possibility, so why treat this any differently?

A lot of brits on radio have made some really ignorant, racist comments in rage at the Iranians, like nuke them, or arrest all iranians living in the UK, that sounds so irrational. It's like saying you stole my lollipop give me it back or ill beat you, grow up ppl. We need calm and diplomacy in a situation like this. There's no need for war it's too petty a reason. Unfortunately the Brit gov is refusing to admit it's mistake, i think they should just agree there's been some misunderstanding eat humble pie and get your personnel out alive, is there any point in being arrogant over this?

The iranian gov is just as arrogant but they have leverage brits don't someone has to be seen to be backing down. I don't think it would make Brit seem as a weak force in the world, and so what if it does doesn't blair want these ppl back alive, or is he willing to have them killed to save face?

Iranians have been criticised for getting forced confessions out of the captives, like signed letters admitting they went over the border. There;s also been a lot of controversy coz the only female captive was made to wear a headscarf. Well i don't agree with force but some have said these ppl have had their human rights abused. It seems as though they have been looked after well though the female captive suggested so and she looked very well considering all that she's been through. But we won't know the truth until these ppl return home and give interviews.

Hostage-taking is the Irani national sport and the reason we have six of their soldiers is that they make regular incursions, by the platoon (30-50 enlisted men, commanded by a commissioned officer) into Iraq to fight American and Iraqi forces.

[url= fight... poorly.[/url]

I suspect as far as the United States is concerned war is inevitable, unless tensions can be forestalled until the next Irani election (and I see Blair is attempting to do so by asking us to stay out of the British hostage situation). Now that we've moved the Mediterranean fleet we are logistically capable of a four front war and expanding the CENTCOM theater (for history buffs this is without precedent), Irani arrogance will not take this heightened presence into their military considerations.

Alexander didn't pack the punch we do. In the hope war can be avoided I sincerely wish to believe they are more politically sophisticated than they make themselves appear, otherwise there is no other alternative than to close this absurd chapter in Persian history.

Submitted by SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV on 8 April, 2007 - 21:34

To my friend dave!!

hello davy son…i been on holiday…just read ur recent comments on this thread…i wasnt just being a rude, pompous englishman dismissing ur opinions as irrelevant colonial malcontent… Smile

i was with ewa (the polish girl) in france, italy and austria for a month…had enough of those fascists for the time being so im back home…

i see ur good lady is pregnant again….congrats….u dont waste any time do u…u must be a good catholic… Wink

happy easter to u and ur (rapidly growing) family… Biggrin

"Don Karnage" wrote:
From what you've said so far I'm not sure whether the sum effect of what you have been saying isn't a munich agreement.

im not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination…but war must be the last resort not the first as the current US govt desires it to be…war is never to be ruled out completely, but an unnecessary war is morally repugnant…and talking up another war against iran is not the correct option at the moment…that’s not to say it has been ruled out completely…

gotta say i have to balk at any historical comparison that puts the iranians in the role of the nazis, the peace brigade in the role of the bumbling nev chamberlain and, most ludicrously, the bushites in the role of winston churchill…now i that’s not quite what ur getting at, but we have heard this whole appeasement comparison every time a dictator ticks us off…

castro, nasser, ghaddafi, saddam, mugabe….they are all “new hitlers” who we must bomb into submission…"there's only one language they understand!!!"

but u are right in saying that i have no trust in the govt and “intelligence” services of the USA and UK…I don’t…they are politicised liars who will make up “evidence” if none exists…just like they did in 2002/3….in britain we know it as a “dodgy dossier”...so how much credibility do these proven liars have?

in this specific situation the bushite policy, with its relentless hostility to iran, is failing…there is no current evidence to justify an assault on iran…

we have just had the royal navy hostage drama…now those brit sailors shouldn’t have been in iranian waters…which they almost certainly were…I’d blame the useless sap blair who thinks a navy is worthless…i played with more toy ships in the bath as a kid than the royal navy currently command….no wonder our sailors were captured so easily…but they weren’t tortured and abused and if they were illegally in Iranian territorial waters then their arrests were justified…

The only good thing that came out of the hostage fiasco was that diplomacy saved the day without resort to military posturing…im certain that the US govt wanted the Iranians to torture the brit sailors (guantanamo style) to justify another moral outrage and set up another conflict in the mid east….i hope it doesn’t come to that…but we need the war mongering bushites out of power before we can more forward….

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Now that we've moved the Mediterranean fleet we are logistically capable of a four front war and expanding the CENTCOM theater (for history buffs this is without precedent), Irani arrogance will not take this heightened presence into their military considerations.

Alexander didn't pack the punch we do. In the hope war can be avoided I sincerely wish to believe they are more politically sophisticated than they make themselves appear, otherwise there is no other alternative than to close this absurd chapter in Persian history..

sorry dave, but the USA aint no alexander…med fleet or nay…u cant control iraq with some 150,000 heavily armed soldiers, so what chance u got against the Iranians, who, unlike the Iraqi army, will actually fight back? U may certainly bomb them back to the stone age, but don’t expect any real success or moral high ground…its bluster from the americans, it doesn’t fool anyone…killing lots of Iranians from 30,000 ft aint gonna sustain western civilisation for too long…

putting hope in diplomacy is not appeasement…war mongering bushites must learn that…we must not take any lessons on the “military option” from a hypocrite, draft dodger like george bush…

i also disagree with ur comments about who is likely to be in the firing line in the UK/US armies....it aint the privilidged officer class thats for sure....its the cannon fodder in the infantry who fight rich mans wars....

laterz

—

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Submitted by Dave on 12 April, 2007 - 21:14

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
To my friend dave!!

hello davy son…i been on holiday…just read ur recent comments on this thread…i wasnt just being a rude, pompous englishman dismissing ur opinions as irrelevant colonial malcontent… Smile

i was with ewa (the polish girl) in france, italy and austria for a month…had enough of those fascists for the time being so im back home…

i see ur good lady is pregnant again….congrats….u dont waste any time do u…u must be a good catholic… Wink

happy easter to u and ur (rapidly growing) family… Biggrin

Hi George,

Happy Easter to you too (belatedly). It sounds like you and Ewa are growing very close indeed!

Quote:
im not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination…but war must be the last resort not the first as the current US govt desires it to be…war is never to be ruled out completely, but an unnecessary war is morally repugnant…and talking up another war against iran is not the correct option at the moment…that’s not to say it has been ruled out completely…

But what you are advocating is exactly what Americas present position is. We've offered several political and economic incentives, with the knowledge we do not take war "off the table."

Quote:
gotta say i have to balk at any historical comparison that puts the iranians in the role of the nazis, the peace brigade in the role of the bumbling nev chamberlain and, most ludicrously, the bushites in the role of winston churchill…now i that’s not quite what ur getting at, but we have heard this whole appeasement comparison every time a dictator ticks us off…

castro, nasser, ghaddafi, saddam, mugabe….they are all “new hitlers” who we must bomb into submission…"there's only one language they understand!!!"

Appeasement is not limited to one particular time period, war or dictator. The Duke of Paris appeased the Norse, the American public appeases big polluters. It's a political decision which consistently looks away from solving a problem, but rather pushes it off to another generation.

Quote:
but u are right in saying that i have no trust in the govt and “intelligence” services of the USA and UK…I don’t…they are politicised liars who will make up “evidence” if none exists…just like they did in 2002/3….in britain we know it as a “dodgy dossier”...so how much credibility do these proven liars have?

And what credibility does Iran have?

Quote:
in this specific situation the bushite policy, with its relentless hostility to iran, is failing…there is no current evidence to justify an assault on iran…

Our hostility with Iran existed long before Bush ever came into office. They are an enemy of the United States because they made the decision to be that way.

I disagree that there is no evidence to justify an assault on Iran. They are sending their armed forces by the platoon across the border into Iraq to engage American soldiers - that in and of itself is a declaration of war. They are pursuing an illegal nuclear program without any indication of relenting and are threatening American allies.

Quote:
we have just had the royal navy hostage drama…now those brit sailors shouldn’t have been in iranian waters…which they almost certainly were…I’d blame the useless sap blair who thinks a navy is worthless…i played with more toy ships in the bath as a kid than the royal navy currently command….no wonder our sailors were captured so easily…but they weren’t tortured and abused and if they were illegally in Iranian territorial waters then their arrests were justified…

They were in Iraqi waters on a UN mission.

Quote:
The only good thing that came out of the hostage fiasco was that diplomacy saved the day without resort to military posturing…im certain that the US govt wanted the Iranians to torture the brit sailors (guantanamo style) to justify another moral outrage and set up another conflict in the mid east….i hope it doesn’t come to that…but we need the war mongering bushites out of power before we can more forward….

The United States did not want the British sailors to be tortured, this is sensationalism.

Quote:
sorry dave, but the USA aint no alexander…med fleet or nay…u cant control iraq with some 150,000 heavily armed soldiers, so what chance u got against the Iranians, who, unlike the Iraqi army, will actually fight back? U may certainly bomb them back to the stone age, but don’t expect any real success or moral high ground…its bluster from the americans, it doesn’t fool anyone…killing lots of Iranians from 30,000 ft aint gonna sustain western civilisation for too long…

Logistically you are simply incorrect. With the fleet there it we are fully capable of a four front war, fortunately we would only have to fight a one front war on a new theater, which is not difficult whatsoever.

Quote:
putting hope in diplomacy is not appeasement…war mongering bushites must learn that…we must not take any lessons on the “military option” from a hypocrite, draft dodger like george bush…

This makes no sense, above you said you do not believe in appeasement and you are not a pacifist. You suggested diplomacy should come first but it is imprudent and pacifist to not leave the option for military action on table. Yet you blast the United States for pursuing this very policy.

We've not invaded Iran, we've offered political and economic incentives alone, in conjunction with the European nations, and in conjunction with the United Nations. I don't know why you think referencing Bush like he's a swear word makes your point any more salient, if you are pacifist just say so, you're the only person that appears to have a problem with pacifism even though it seems more in line with what you are talking about...

Quote:
i also disagree with ur comments about who is likely to be in the firing line in the UK/US armies....it aint the privilidged officer class thats for sure....its the cannon fodder in the infantry who fight rich mans wars....

laterz

There is no "privileged" officer "class." That sounds like something you've gotten from military movies about the Victorian era. Anyone can be an officer in the United States, so long as they are trained. The only significant pool or "class" of people that consistently turn out officers are military families - which are usually from the lower middle class.

Many if not most officers do not even have degrees since they joined up through ROTC in High School or OCS later in life. And the pay scale is awful, the average lower echelon officer with a family of four earns roughly 30 thousand dollars. Single officers make significantly less.

The vast majority of wealthy and privileged people have a reputation for avoiding military service. So much so that Barry Goldwater reorganized the military in the 80s to force the National Guard into deployment so that wealthy draftees would have to fight too. As a result, (and because it is an all volunteer army now) wealthy people just don't join at all.

Submitted by SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV on 13 April, 2007 - 20:14

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Hi George,

Happy Easter to you too (belatedly). It sounds like you and Ewa are growing very close indeed!…

yes...very, very....

dunno about the catholic conversion thing though :?

"Don Karnage" wrote:

But what you are advocating is exactly what Americas present position is. We've offered several political and economic incentives, with the knowledge we do not take war "off the table."

i dont see it that way dave…there are many in powerful positions in the usa who have always wanted war on iran... u make it sound as if the usa is reluctant to attack iran but has no choice due to “evil” irans intransigence and dastardly plots to destroy the west...

that’s far from the reality…

certain americans have always intended to strike at iran regardless of the political situation...they are looking for any excuse….

“ANYONE CAN GO TO BAGHDAD!! REAL MEN GO TO TEHRAN!!

the US plan to control the mid east seems to be set in stone..it will ignore any attempts to solve the nuclear issue by diplomacy…

whos next? syria? (they could do with a puppet regime!) lebanon? (usa lost that one last summer)

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Appeasement is not limited to one particular time period, war or dictator. The Duke of Paris appeased the Norse, the American public appeases big polluters. It's a political decision which consistently looks away from solving a problem, but rather pushes it off to another generation

its also an easy jibe, often made by war mongers who have already decided on military action, who wish to dispose of diplomacy, and intend to instigate war without allowing mediation a chance to solve specific issues…the most recent example is the bushite invasion of iraq on the false claim that saddam had wmd’s…war was the policy regardless of the facts…

"Don Karnage" wrote:

What credibility does Iran have?

about the same as george bush, tony blair and their pals…

the same people who continue to claim that iraq was a “success”, that saddam really did have “wmds”, that the surge in bagdhad “is working”….

the bomb in the green zone yesterday would suggest otherwise…

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Our hostility with Iran existed long before Bush ever came into office. They are an enemy of the United States because they made the decision to be that way.

did they?

or has western interference made them that way?…

usa has openly decaled itself as iran’s sworn enemy since 1979, describing that country as “evil”.

american hostility has been uncompromising ever since the Iranians booted out the puppet ( and truly “evil”) shah…

the americans, and the british, would have no problem with the shah’s iran toting nuclear weapons…

"Don Karnage" wrote:

I disagree that there is no evidence to justify an assault on Iran. They are sending their armed forces by the platoon across the border into Iraq to engage American soldiers - that in and of itself is a declaration of war. They are pursuing an illegal nuclear program without any indication of relenting and are threatening American allies..

so america claims…

do american agents operate within Iranian territories ?

i don’t believe that the nuclear issue is the real reason for American aggression towards iran. that country is perfectly entitled to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes, just as we are. the issue over nuclear weapons can be resolved with diplomacy if given a chance…

irans nuclear programme is still at a very early stage…

i strongly disagree with ur view that america has been generous and noble in its “offers” to iran…

"Don Karnage" wrote:

They were in Iraqi waters on a UN mission...

so says the ministry of defence…very few people in britain believe that claim…

there is no doubt that they were spying on iran….

"Don Karnage" wrote:

Logistically you are simply incorrect. With the fleet there it we are fully capable of a four front war, fortunately we would only have to fight a one front war on a new theater, which is not difficult whatsoever....

the US armed forces are not alexander…you will not be welcomed in iran with flowers thrown before ur tanks, no more than we are wanted in iraq right now….

if u consider “success” to be the destruction of iranian cities, or a heavy civilian casualty toll, then yes, perhaps ur attack will result in “victory”…

but the usa will never conquer persia despire the alexander fantasies

ur (our) “victory” in iraq (declared by bush in 2003) has resulted in devastation and a complete catastrophe. the human cost of this disaster is apparently of no consequence to the US govt who now wish to extend the war to cover up their total failure to win the peace…

do u consider the aftermath of iraq to be “not difficult”?

or are the repercussions of attacking iran “not difficult” to deal with?

i thnk the british troops in the south of iraq would face the brunt of irans retaliation should america attack…that would be pretty "difficult" to deal with…it would also end any forlorn hopes of a peaceful democracy in iraq…

"Don Karnage" wrote:

We've not invaded Iran, we've offered political and economic incentives alone, in conjunction with the European nations, and in conjunction with the United Nations. I don't know why you think referencing Bush like he's a swear word makes your point any more salient, .......

iran is the next piece in the american plan to enforce its will on the entire mid east…despite the flop in iraq, america continues to believe that its policy is working and will transform the region into a stable pro western land of milk and honey…

what they cant grape is that they are making things worse, destroying peoples lives and making them hate the west all the more…

when u r in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging….

"Don Karnage" wrote:

There is no "privileged" officer "class." That sounds like something you've gotten from military movies about the Victorian era. Anyone can be an officer in the United States, so long as they are trained. The only significant pool or "class" of people that consistently turn out officers are military families - which are usually from the lower middle class.

all the same, it is not the officer class who take the bulk of the of casualties…it’s the underpayed, overworked, poor, tricked and deceived foot soldiers who will die for the “cause”.

lions led by donkeys…

—

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Submitted by Dave on 14 April, 2007 - 18:07

Well yea... seeing as the ratio of officer to enlisted is like 1:6 it's pretty much a given most casualties are among the enlisted men... I have no idea what you are going on about with lions and donkeys, officer classes and "poor footsoldiers." Like I said before it seems like your conception of the US military is something you read in Victorian novels about the British empire.

Or maybe Marx

Either way it's totally irrelevant and fantastic. I'm a wealthy white lieutenant, my superior is a lower middle class white guy, his superior is a lower class white guy, his superior is a lower middle class black guy, his superior is a wealthy white senator and his superior is a middle class woman.

Not precisely the good old boy club you keep alluding to.

As for the jab about payment, you've gotta be kidding - my sergeants make more than me. My military pay doesn't even pay for a significant fraction of my taxes. Until you get to Colonel (0-5, 0-6) you're not going to make a livable wage for a normal family of four.

Also, that business about being tricked and deceived is liberal nonsense. The military is completely volunteer, there are incentives on top of a pay check like college tuition money et cetera but there is nothing deceptive about it. If you join the military you are on the GI bill and you get money for education, I've never heard of any soldier being denied this in fact pretty much the entire post war education system was built around the GI bill.

Where are you getting all of this stuff from!? If these are just meant to be insults let me know, I don't want to waste the brainpower trying to figure out why you are saying this stuff if it's just something off the top of your head.

Submitted by Dawud on 14 April, 2007 - 18:48

Salaam

Leaving something of politics out of it, I agree heavily with this statement:

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
if u consider “success” to be the destruction of iranian cities, or a heavy civilian casualty toll, then yes, perhaps ur attack will result in “victory”…

Read it through a few times.

—

Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.

Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes

Submitted by Mr Honey's Day Out on 14 April, 2007 - 23:10

This weekend America's biggest threat is from the weather. Hope you're somewhere safe, Dave.

—

[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]

Submitted by SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV on 16 April, 2007 - 18:38

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:
This weekend America's biggest threat is from the weather. Hope you're somewhere safe, Dave.

damn right….

america is under no imminent threat, and war with iran is not in britain’s best interest, wouldn’t u agree mr honey?

or do u have another opinion on the iran question?

do speak up old boy…

—

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Submitted by SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV on 16 April, 2007 - 18:39

"Don Karnage" wrote:
Well yea... seeing as the ratio of officer to enlisted is like 1:6 it's pretty much a given most casualties are among the enlisted men... I have no idea what you are going on about with lions and donkeys, officer classes and "poor footsoldiers." Like I said before it seems like your conception of the US military is something you read in Victorian novels about the British empire.

Or maybe Marx

Either way it's totally irrelevant and fantastic. I'm a wealthy white lieutenant, my superior is a lower middle class white guy, his superior is a lower class white guy, his superior is a lower middle class black guy, his superior is a wealthy white senator and his superior is a middle class woman.

Not precisely the good old boy club you keep alluding to.

As for the jab about payment, you've gotta be kidding - my sergeants make more than me. My military pay doesn't even pay for a significant fraction of my taxes. Until you get to Colonel (0-5, 0-6) you're not going to make a livable wage for a normal family of four.

Also, that business about being tricked and deceived is liberal nonsense. The military is completely volunteer, there are incentives on top of a pay check like college tuition money et cetera but there is nothing deceptive about it. If you join the military you are on the GI bill and you get money for education, I've never heard of any soldier being denied this in fact pretty much the entire post war education system was built around the GI bill.

Where are you getting all of this stuff from!? If these are just meant to be insults let me know, I don't want to waste the brainpower trying to figure out why you are saying this stuff if it's just something off the top of your head.

dave, my remarks are not an insult in the slightest, when did u get so oversensitive?

im sure the US military is a perfect meritocracy, the british army aint, that’s for sure…but that wasn’t the main point I was tryin to raise….

my comments are relevant to any military in the world, including the iraqi insurgents who r causing so much damage….young men, loyal and brave, with a keen passion to “serve their country” or “serve the cause of God” are misled by deceitful politicians and conned into unjust, counter productive conflicts, where many will meet their death…

the military (including the officers) are the [b]lions[/b], while the politicians are the [b]donkeys[/b] who send the brave volunteers off to fight an unjust, immoral war…

lions led by donkeys is a tragedy that many a infantryman has faced….and so have the officers…soldiers don’t choose the wars they fight in…they do their duty and hope that their sacrifice is for a just cause…

it aint in iraq, and it wont be in iran….

if this is “insulting” to you, and u wanna get all upset about it like a girl, then fine…u can like it or lump it…it’s an opinion common in uk military families…so i feel there is nothing wrong in stating it, plain and simple….

this shouldn’t be a distraction from the main issue, which is the American intention to attack iran regardless of any diplomatic efforts…the war mongers made up their mind long ago…

—

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Submitted by SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV on 16 April, 2007 - 18:43

whoops

—

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Submitted by SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV on 16 April, 2007 - 18:55

ZH

—

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Submitted by SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV on 16 April, 2007 - 18:57

"Dawud" wrote:
Salaam

Leaving something of politics out of it, I agree heavily with this statement:

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
if u consider “success” to be the destruction of iranian cities, or a heavy civilian casualty toll, then yes, perhaps ur attack will result in “victory”…

Read it through a few times.

this should be a major consideration among the war mongering politicians….the liars and the hypocrites on both sides….

it should knock them down from their moral high horse…

unfortunately it doesnt…the human concequences are a minor consideration for the aggressive parties…

the number of civilians and soldiers killed, maimed, or have their lives destroyed, is irrelevant for the chiefs in charge...

—

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Submitted by Mr Honey's Day Out on 16 April, 2007 - 19:02

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
america is under no imminent threat, and war with iran is not in britain’s best interest, wouldn’t u agree mr honey?

or do u have another opinion on the iran question?

do speak up old boy…

I'm not privy to every detail of the threat Iran might pose.

We do know that Iran is fighting proxy wars against Israel and also in Iraq, but that doesn't mean the UK or anyone else for that matter has to go to war against them. Issues for Britain and the US are whether to take Iran to task for weapons violations, whether to respond to Iran's actions in Iraq and whether to take action alongside Israel. We also know that various Sunni states object to any Iranian pretensions at being regional hegemon and are themselves taking measures that could result in further wars and proliferation, with or without western support. As with all such tensions, it would be better if all sides were for diplomacy and peace, but if anyone isn't, you can't expect everyone else to put their feet up.

These are serious issues. If diplomacy can resolve them so much the better. Much as I dislike the regime I don't have it in for the Iranians and acknowledge that action is generally escalatory unless you play for all out victory, which in a democracy requires a degree of public support. I wouldn't balk if anyone took out Iran's nuclear facilities, but I'm not relishing the idea of a war either.

"Britain's best interest" at this juncture is pretty unquantifiable.

I do think more academics should take a look at the ideologies of the extremes of Shia and Sunni such as the Ayatollah or Qutb and be less accommodating, in their liberalism, to these totalitarian movements.

It is much easier to argue for pacification, but pretty [color=black]dum[/color]b.

I didn't really enjoy answering that. As you can tell I'm concerned for a number of reasons and believe something must and will be done, but I don't have a particular strategy to advocate. I guess the clearest premise for war is if either way will result in unbearable loss. I don't know if Iran is such a case.

Forgive me jumping the gun but I also guess an implication of your demand is that I would be more concerned for Israel's survival than perhaps you are, which may well be true. That doesn't in and of itself mean that a threat to Israel should be ignored.

Blair et al don't often address the issues honestly and given the mishandling of Iraq, I can understand the cynicism but I wouldn't be blinkered. I also don't know what to make of economic interests in the region, which supposedly anti-war campaigners alternately blame for the conflict and hold up as the only justifying factor. One clear point is that untruth and corruption spoil legitimate aims. This occurs throughout the political spectrum.

—

[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]

Submitted by SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV on 16 April, 2007 - 21:05

thank you for that mr honey. you are usually quite vague so an opinion from you is welcome.

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

These are serious issues. If diplomacy can resolve them so much the better. Much as I dislike the regime I don't have it in for the Iranians and acknowledge that action is generally escalatory unless you play for all out victory, which in a democracy requires a degree of public support. I wouldn't balk if anyone took out Iran's nuclear facilities, but I'm not relishing the idea of a war either..

my view is similar to your understanding on this…however, my fear is that certain interests have already made up their mind…

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

"Britain's best interest" at this juncture is pretty unquantifiable...

i am of the opinion that diplomacy is preferable at this time to another reckless adventure in the middle east for britain…

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

Forgive me jumping the gun but I also guess an implication of your demand is that I would be more concerned for Israel's survival than perhaps you are, which may well be true. That doesn't in and of itself mean that a threat to Israel should be ignored....

that wasn’t the insinuation of my words, and i am not of the opinion that israel’s survival is threatened by iran…u may well disagree, and i accept that israel’s security is an issue…i also consider it unhelpful for israel to “let it be known” that their air force is practicing for an attack on iran, possibly with nuclear weapons…however any unprovoked attack on israel would be an act of war that would be met by an appropriate response…currently iran is incapable of any such attack, so to consider war based on this very distant threat is, to me, irresponsible…

"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

Blair et al don't often address the issues honestly and given the mishandling of Iraq, I can understand the cynicism but I wouldn't be blinkered. I also don't know what to make of economic interests in the region, which supposedly anti-war campaigners alternately blame for the conflict and hold up as the only justifying factor. One clear point is that untruth and corruption spoil legitimate aims. This occurs throughout the political spectrum.

that’s the whole problem…the liars cannot expect public support while the evidence of their deceit is so clear to all…

—

They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...

POWER TO THE PEOPLE....

Submitted by Mr Honey's Day Out on 16 April, 2007 - 21:24

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
you are usually quite vague so an opinion from you is welcome.

I've been non-committal and said very little on the subject, because whatever my views I don't hang around here just to fan flames. My last comment certainly is vague.

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
my view is similar to your understanding on this…however, my fear is that certain interests have already made up their mind…

I believe Ahmadinejad has bad intentions. I also believe Iran's regime bears a lot more direct responsibility for the ongoing deaths in Iraq than either America or Britain. An immense concern is that if America and Britain pull out of Iraq, Iran will install a similar theocracy. While that doesn't exonerate Britain or America for their failures, it is a strong complaint that the death toll routinely attributed to America's war is really the work of Iran.

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

"Britain's best interest" at this juncture is pretty unquantifiable...

i am of the opinion that diplomacy is preferable at this time to another reckless adventure in the middle east for britain…

Easy said.

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
"Mr Honey's Day Out" wrote:

Forgive me jumping the gun but I also guess an implication of your demand is that I would be more concerned for Israel's survival than perhaps you are, which may well be true. That doesn't in and of itself mean that a threat to Israel should be ignored....

that wasn’t the insinuation of my words, and i am not of the opinion that israel’s survival is threatened by iran…u may well disagree, and i accept that israel’s security is an issue…i also consider it unhelpful for israel to “let it be known” that their air force is practicing for an attack on iran, possibly with nuclear weapons…however any unprovoked attack on israel would be an act of war that would be met by an appropriate response…currently iran is incapable of any such attack, so to consider war based on this very distant threat is, to me, irresponsible…

Iran is funding Hezbollah and does threaten Israel with war and I don't think the direct threat from Iran is so distant. If Iran repeatedly describes Israel as the enemy and makes threats, it could be fairly argued that it is absurd to wait for a catastrophic cassus belli before taking action. In fact I find any such tendency to wait until Iran lands a strike disingenuous, and that was the problem with Israel's only reacting to Hezbollah when two soldiers were kidnapped, giving the mistaken impression that this trigger was the entire reasoning behind that war. The "anti-war" view (which masks all manner of other opinions) seems to consider that middle-eastern states do not bear responsibility for inculcating enmity.

As I said: "I do think more academics should take a look at the ideologies of the extremes of Shia and Sunni such as the Ayatollah or Qutb and be less accommodating, in their liberalism, to these totalitarian movements."

"SAINT GEORGE ZHUKOV" wrote:
that’s the whole problem…the liars cannot expect public support while the evidence of their deceit is so clear to all…

True as that may be, it is not a reliable excuse for blanket obstructionism.

And I agree that deceit in politics is a horrible issue to contend with. I don't take the view that all politics is evil.

—

[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]

Submitted by malik on 17 April, 2007 - 14:23

America will in a year or two make a humiliating retreat from Iraq. Look at the signs right now. Its all over the news on your tv.
Iraq has truly defeated and disgraced the Great Satan. Bush dont like the fact that the whole world is now laughing at US military and its inability to beat insurgents. The Devil is desperate to show it can win against Iraqi insurgents. This is land of Imam Ali. God is standing against America.

US is also making Iran its next target.
As we all know Iran has been a pain in US side for 30 years.
America has tried to destroy the Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.
So far US has failed misrably.
Now it is trying to threaten Iran with military strikes against Iran's nuclear program.
Iranians have repeatedly dared US to begin the war.
President Ahmadinejad, God bless him, issues defiance on weekly basis to President Bush, God curse him.
But Bush is too stuck in Iraq to do anything to Iran. Iraqis both Sunnis and Shias have made life hell for US military.
US thought Iraq will be a walk in the park. It turned out to be worse than Vietnam.

—

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

Submitted by Mr Honey's Day Out on 18 April, 2007 - 15:02

"malik" wrote:
Iraq has truly defeated and disgraced the Great Satan. Bush dont like the fact that the whole world is now laughing at US military and its inability to beat insurgents. The Devil is desperate to show it can win against Iraqi insurgents. This is land of Imam Ali. God is standing against America.

This is how God fights Satan?

"[url= wrote:
AP[/url]"]BAGHDAD - Four large bombs exploded across Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 127 people and wounding scores as violence climbed toward levels seen before the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital began two months ago.

In the deadliest of the attacks, a parked car bomb detonated in a crowd of workers at the Sadriyah market in central Baghdad, killing at least 82 people and wounding 94, said Raad Muhsin, an official at Al-Kindi Hospital where the victims were taken.

—

[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]

Submitted by Ya'qub on 18 April, 2007 - 15:11

Mr Honey:

malik's comments are sometimes similar to an itch:

there more you scratch the more irritating it gets. leave it and it'll eventually calm down.

Malik:

assalamu alaikum. plz can you stop looking at the world in absolute black and white, good and evil, because its not anything like that and the conduct of many Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere is horrific and terrible and by supporting it you can only make matters worse. America have no right to interfere with internal politics of other nations, it says so on the UN charter to which they are signed. Muslims have no right to kill innocent people, even more so innocent other Muslims. It says so in the Qur'an. The End

—

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Submitted by malik on 21 May, 2007 - 15:58

Plans of the Great Satan lie in ruins.

Quote:

[b]Iran says anti-U.S. policy "bigger than Hiroshima"[/b]

The Washington Post
Monday, May 21, 2007; 10:14 AM

Iran's policies of standing up to the United States have set off a "powerful bomb in the world of politics" bigger than the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday.

The comments, carried by state television and radio, come amid prolonged tension between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program. U.S. officials say Iran is trying to build an atom bomb but Tehran insists its plans are peaceful.

Iran has refused to halt sensitive nuclear work, despite U.S. threats to ratchet up pressure with new U.N. sanctions. Two rounds of sanctions have already been imposed since December.

"The political field of today's world is a complicated field with a great war of wills and policies ... It can be said that Iran has exploded a powerful bomb in the world of politics that is hundred times more powerful than the bomb the Americans exploded in Hiroshima," Khamenei was quoted as saying.

"Even Europeans are speechless before this oppressive America, but the Iranian nation by its actions and stances has placed a question mark over all the rules and principles of this oppressive power."

The United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki shortly before Japan surrendered at the end of World War Two.

—

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

Submitted by Ya'qub on 21 May, 2007 - 16:12

I think your Ayatollah has made a disgusting comparision and if I were a Shia I would be ashamed of him.

—

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Submitted by malik on 21 May, 2007 - 16:58

It is clear that you have not understood how Iran at every time manages to disgrace the world superpower. Ayatollah's ways are beyond the power of your intellect.

—

Ayatollah rightly named America as "Great Satan".

Pages

Post reply