|
|
Post by duster on Apr 1, 2007 22:55:28 GMT -5
I think few people have any illusions about Iran or even the U.S and British for that matter. Just as no one has any illusions about Russia or China. Why use direct force when there are other ways that are more effective and durable? The Iranians don't gain by hurting the hostages so it's just a matter for the Brits to keep a stiff upper lip, so to speak. Besides, no way Blair leaves his successor in a few months time a new shooting war in addition to the unpopular one in Iraq.
At a military, economic, demographic and political level, Iran does not in any way resemble Kaddafi's Libya or Hussein's Iraq, so the comparison is not a necessarily a good one, imo. Among other things, political and military control is not held by one person or one group so a surgical strike would be difficult. Iran suffered huge losses during the Iran-Iraq war and there was no uprising. If anything, an air strike would be counterproductive and it would, instead, strengthen Ahmadinejad's support at home
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 23:37:40 GMT -5
The Hezbollah won the war only in their minds and those that believe they won. By any other account, they lost. Their people live in ruins and they live by begging for money. GREAT victory.  If that is the type of war that Iran can win, then it's fine by me. No sure about that, HA. Hezbollah took on a country that defeated the combined Arab armies of several countries in several wars easily and easily beat them. But, it was the first time Israeli forces really had no strategy. They basically walked into Hezbollah sights (direct quote from Netanyahu). They won't make that mistake again, especially withe the rest of the Arab world watching. Cheers. Easlily beat them? Is this the measure of success?  And beggin for money from other arab states is success? By any measure other then bravado, the Hezbollah have nothing to show for their efforts other then ruins, renewed poverty and body bags. Of course, they also have several thousand unwanted guests. As for Bibi, he is a 12 point front runner and he will not hesitate to bloody Iran or flatten Syria. July is around the corner. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 1, 2007 23:41:25 GMT -5
Among other things, political and military control is not held by one person or one group...... That ia going to be exploited by Gates. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 2, 2007 3:08:49 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, a full scale bombing mission needs to be done, to destroy their [the United States'] nuclear capacity, military and leadership. To hell with the howling fundamentalist Muslim Christian mob. They only understand violence, so lets give them what they want. Open wide and swallow! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 2, 2007 5:57:28 GMT -5
Use a surgical strike of all of their military capability and the little guys may take the que to overthrow this regime. More likely it will unify a split country against an imperialistic aggressor. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 2, 2007 6:02:45 GMT -5
Easlily beat them? Is this the measure of success? Success, like beauty, is in the ey of the beholder. Success means they weren't blown off the face of the earth, they held their own, they can now regroup to try again . . . and they have "the world on their side" because of collateral damage caused by Israeli bombing. We may hav seen the same pictures of Lebanese families homes and lives in ruins, but that's the picture we have: overreaction by Israelis causing ruin; "poor Hezbollah", only trying to free their people. Perception is the new reality. They don't care about that. If they did they wouldn't have hid behind civilians during the bombing. All they care about is the destruction of the Israeli state, hang the cost! |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2007 6:50:46 GMT -5
Easlily beat them? Is this the measure of success? And beggin for money from other arab states is success? By any measure other then bravado, the Hezbollah have nothing to show for their efforts other then ruins, renewed poverty and body bags. Of course, they also have several thousand unwanted guests. Well, when you look at it, Israel's response was impressive. Yet what we aren't privy to is the behind the scenes goings-on. It's this kind of damage that Hezbollah uses to their advantage. All the common Lebanese person knows is that their home was flattened and their life disrupted. Financially backed by Iran and/or Syria, Hezbollah comes in waiving money that finances replacement hospitals and schools. They may even distribute cash to those most in need of it. They started with 5,000 trained soldiers and I honestly don't know how many they lost, but it's moot. They've won the hearts and minds of the majority in Lebanon already. And the fact that Israel wasn't able to eradicate the tiny force hasn't gone unnoticed by other Arab countries. I heard him on Glenn Beck one night and his absolute number-1 priority is the survival of Israel. Just by winning that election, he'll end up pissing off every Arab state around him. If Iran is targeted the rest of the Western world might be in his debt. I know that's an extreme, but Israel has to consider the implications of not taking action. But, it's a catch-22 actually. Don't do anything and risk a nuclear strike on Israel that will result in the Middle East being bombed into glass. Or, make a preemptive strke and accept those consequences that will maintain the status quo. Hate and fear. As BC pointed out several times in the past, Iran might have a strategy, as do those extremists in Iraq, as do those who flew the planes into the WTC. Hezbollah also understands what they're doing in Lebanon as well. It all revolves around fueling the anti-semetic mindset in the Middle East. And whether Israel fails to act, or if they do, the mindset won't go away. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2007 6:59:20 GMT -5
I think few people have any illusions about Iran or even the U.S and British for that matter. Just as no one has any illusions about Russia or China. Why use direct force when there are other ways that are more effective and durable? The Iranians don't gain by hurting the hostages so it's just a matter for the Brits to keep a stiff upper lip, so to speak. Besides, no way Blair leaves his successor in a few months time a new shooting war in addition to the unpopular one in Iraq. At a military, economic, demographic and political level, Iran does not in any way resemble Kaddafi's Libya or Hussein's Iraq, so the comparison is not a necessarily a good one, imo. Among other things, political and military control is not held by one person or one group so a surgical strike would be difficult. Iran suffered huge losses during the Iran-Iraq war and there was no uprising. If anything, an air strike would be counterproductive and it would, instead, strengthen Ahmadinejad's support at home It makes good sense, Duster. It may take years for those prisoners to be released. But, they're the pawns right now. WRT to Israel and the Iranian nuke program, I don't think Israel will be sitting idly by on this one. Netanyahu not only wants to eradicate that program but he also wants to restore Israeli pride after their last push into Lebanon. I know he understands the implications of an air strike into Iran but he also understands what it means to be the biggest kid on the block. IMHO, he doesn't have a choice. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Apr 2, 2007 14:41:04 GMT -5
I don't see the United States kidnapping soldiers from other conflicts, outside of their jurisdiction, and holding them in front of the camera's and subjecting them to a kangaroo court. They pulled this Saperlipopette in 1979 and think that they can do it again. Their lucky that I'm not the U.S. President or British Prime Minister. Their whole country would look like southern Lebanon, something that they helped create with their proxies in the region.
I also don't see any howling Christian Mobs in the street either. Act like Dog's, get disciplined like Dog's!
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 2, 2007 15:13:20 GMT -5
I don't see the United States kidnapping soldiers from other conflicts, outside of their jurisdiction, and holding them in front of the camera's and subjecting them to a kangaroo court. They pulled this Saperlipopette in 1979 and think that they can do it again. Their lucky that I'm not the U.S. President or British Prime Minister. Their whole country would look like southern Lebanon, something that they helped create with their proxies in the region. I also don't see any howling Christian Mobs in the street either. Act like Dog's, get disciplined like Dog's! No, they just "host" their "visitors at Guantanamo Bay for a day pr two however long it takes to get them to a fair trial. Hold it -- they trial hasn't happened yet. One bomb -- one bomb into Iran is all it would take to get them flying without end. Don't forget -- we in the western world value life -- value our lives (perhaps a bit too much). they don't care. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 2, 2007 15:22:04 GMT -5
I don't see the United States kidnapping soldiers from other conflicts, outside of their jurisdiction Jurisdiction? It's funny you should use that word, since Britain seems to think they have the jurisdiction to dicate Iran's borders. Their soldiers were arrested in disputed waters, and their response is to make up their own border so they can say they didn't cross it, all for the sake of propaganda. If they had just admitted that the waters were disputed and said that it was not their intention to infringe on Iran, perhaps the soldiers would be free by now. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 2, 2007 15:24:06 GMT -5
I also don't see any howling Christian Mobs in the street either. That's because they're too busy making appearances on Fox News and CNN. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2007 16:56:26 GMT -5
I don't see the United States kidnapping soldiers from other conflicts, outside of their jurisdiction Jurisdiction? It's funny you should use that word, since Britain seems to think they have the jurisdiction to dicate Iran's borders. Their soldiers were arrested in disputed waters, and their response is to make up their own border so they can say they didn't cross it, all for the sake of propaganda. If they had just admitted that the waters were disputed and said that it was not their intention to infringe on Iran, perhaps the soldiers would be free by now. Britain can NOT agree too or define what the Iraqi borders are. That has to be resolved between Iraq and the New Persian Empire. In the end, this is not some random occurence. Monkey boy has been through two of these and it's by far and away the best way to deflect criticism of his economic floundering. On top of that, they are about to start massive amount of centirfuges and bring their nuclear weapons program to another level. All I can say...GO BIBI GO! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2007 17:02:19 GMT -5
I don't see the United States kidnapping soldiers from other conflicts, outside of their jurisdiction, and holding them in front of the camera's and subjecting them to a kangaroo court. They pulled this Saperlipopette in 1979 and think that they can do it again. Their lucky that I'm not the U.S. President or British Prime Minister. Their whole country would look like southern Lebanon, something that they helped create with their proxies in the region. I also don't see any howling Christian Mobs in the street either. Act like Dog's, get disciplined like Dog's! No, they just "host" their "visitors at Guantanamo Bay for a day pr two however long it takes to get them to a fair trial. Hold it -- they trial hasn't happened yet. One bomb -- one bomb into Iran is all it would take to get them flying without end. Don't forget -- we in the western world value life -- value our lives (perhaps a bit too much). they don't care. They care Franko, they care more then you think. They like us to believe that they don't care and that they will do anything because that is their ONLY defense against overwhelming military superiority. One day someone will take them up on that threat......and as each passing event takes place, I hope someone takes them up on that. Like I said before.......GO BIBI GO! |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2007 21:03:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 2, 2007 21:09:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 2, 2007 22:23:52 GMT -5
Full story: news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece--- Iran is in no way blameless in all this, but they're being vilified to an extraordinary degree, by the same people who thought an invasion of Iraq would be simple and wouldn't meet much long-term resistance.... so really, how much do they understand about that area of the world ? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2007 23:26:14 GMT -5
There is no fog in Netanyahu vision. NONE. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 2, 2007 23:44:05 GMT -5
Iran is in no way blameless in all this, but they're being vilified to an extraordinary degree, by the same people who thought an invasion of Iraq would be simple and wouldn't meet much long-term resistance.... so really, how much do they understand about that area of the world ? Is there a secret code that Iran is using that makes it hard to understand what their intentions are? news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.eceWe feel pretty smug in Canada about our safety and other then killer bees, we have no immidiate threat on our borders. However.... When Iran goes nuclear, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will go nuclear. If Turkey goes nuclear, Greece will go nuclear and so will a few more countries in the region. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5378148.stmwww.washtimes.com/world/20031021-112804-8451r.htmIs the area that hard to understand? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 3, 2007 3:01:43 GMT -5
Iran is in no way blameless in all this I don't disagree with that statement at all, but, looking at things from Iran's perspective: -the US has a policy that it's ok for them to have nukes but not for Iran, and they've demonstrated a willingness to use them even when not militarily required; in fact, they've shown that they will use any military force at their disposal to acheive political aims, including overtly or secretly invading sovereign countries without provocation -the US has shown total disregard for human rights and civilian life -the US government is openly pushing for an attack against Iran -the US tried to illegally kidnap important Iranian security people on an official visit to Iraq -British marines encroached on waters that Iran claims as its own, and the British government then unilaterally asserted that the waters belonged to Iraq so, it's not hard to understand why Iran would be feeling defensive. I don't think the above perspective is in any way more one-sided than that of the people calling for military action by the US. From Iran: How To Start a War by Gwynne Dyer: Lt-Cdr Horner is the executive officer of the USS Underwood, the
American frigate that works together with HMS Cornwall, the British ship
that the captive boarding party came from. Interviewed after the incident
by Terri Judd of "The Independent," the only British print journalist on
HMS Cornwall, he was obviously struggling to be polite about the gutless
Brits, but he wasn't having much success.
"The US Navy rules of engagement say we have not only a right to
self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence," Horner explained.
"(The British) had every right in my mind and every justification to defend
themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. Our reaction was, Why
didn't your guys defend themselves?'"
So there they are, eight sailors and seven marines in two rubber
boats, with personal weapons and no protection whatever, sitting about a
foot (300 cm) above the water, surrounded by six or seven Iranian attack
boats with mounted machine guns. "Defend yourself" by opening fire, and
after a single long burst from half a dozen heavy machine-guns there will
be fourteen dead young men and one dead young woman in two rapidly sinking
inflatables, and your country will be at war. Seems a bit pointless,
really.Seems to me Horner's thought process is on the same level as that of the Bush administration and most of the other Hawks. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 3, 2007 6:36:53 GMT -5
There is no fog in Netanyahu vision. NONE. Right! And you can't blame him one bit. Iran has openly stated that Israel should not be permitted to exist. Netanyahu counters by stating they have a right to exist. And like his opponent he lays his cards out on the table. The sad part of this ... both sides feel they have no choice. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 3, 2007 7:15:48 GMT -5
Iran is in no way blameless in all this I don't disagree with that statement at all, but, looking at things from Iran's perspective: -the US has a policy that it's ok for them to have nukes but not for Iran, and they've demonstrated a willingness to use them even when not militarily required; in fact, they've shown that they will use any military force at their disposal to acheive political aims, including overtly or secretly invading sovereign countries without provocation Historically speaking, it's been going on for years. Please see The Kingdom of HawaiiAccording to your link, the was an Iranian snatch patrol. They knew what they were doing and why. However, I think they were put on the defensive right after 9/11. Please see Analysis: Iran and the 'axis of evil'Bush may want to go into Iran but he's running out of time. And it doesn't look like the Democrats don't want a war with Iran. And neither does their public. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 3, 2007 17:53:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 4, 2007 11:37:45 GMT -5
I'll be darned. Iran: British sailors to be freed
By NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would free 15 detained British sailors and marines Wednesday as an Easter holiday "gift" to the British people.
He said the captives, who were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian Gulf on March 23, would be taken to the airport at the end of the news conference he was addressing. An Iranian official in London said they would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran.
The release of the crew members would end a 13-day standoff between London and Tehran that was sparked when the crew was seized as it searched for smugglers off the Iraqi coast. Britain denied Iranian claims that the crew had entered Iranian waters.
Recent days saw talk of direct negotiations between Britain and Iran, and a decrease in tensions that had risen after Iran broadcast videos in which female British sailor Faye Turney and others "confessed" to violating Iranian territorial waters.
"On the occasion of the birthday of the great Prophet (Muhammad) . . . and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people - with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial - forgave those 15," he said, referring to the Muslim Prophet's birthday on March 30 and the Easter holiday.
"This pardon is a gift to the British people," he said.
The announcement came shortly after Ahmadinejad pinned a medal on the chest of the Iranian coast guard commander who intercepted the sailors and marines.
In London, the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair said it welcomed the news.
"We are now establishing exactly what this means in terms of the method and timing of their release," a Downing Street spokeswoman said.
An Iranian official in London said the crew members would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran and that it would then be up to the Foreign Office to decide how they would return home.
"They will go through some brief formalities and then they will go to the embassy," said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. "They can go on a British Airways flight to Heathrow, they can go through the UAE (United Arab Emirates), it is up to the British Embassy in Tehran in co-ordination with the Foreign Office here."
The announcement came after Iran's state media reported that an Iranian envoy would be allowed to meet five Iranians detained by U.S. forces in northern Iraq. Another Iranian diplomat, separately seized two months ago by uniformed gunmen in Iraq, was released and returned Tuesday to Tehran.
Ahmadinejad said Iran will never accept trespassing in its territorial waters.
"On behalf of the great Iranian people, I want to thank the Iranian coast guard who courageously defended and captured those who violated their territorial waters," he said.
Ahmadinejad asked Blair not to "punish" the crew for confessing that they had been in Iranian waters when they were seized by the Iranian coast guard. Iran broadcast video of some of the crew giving confessions, angering Britain.
He also criticized Britain for deploying Turney in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.
"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government.
Iran has denied it seized the Britons to force the release of Iranians held in Iraq, and Britain has steadfastly insisted it would not negotiate for the sailors' freedom.
Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency said earlier Wednesday that an Iranian envoy would be allowed to meet with the five detained Iranians in Iraq but gave no further details.
A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said, however, that American authorities were still considering the request. The spokesman, Maj.-Gen. William Caldwell, said an international Red Cross team, including one Iranian, had visited the prisoners but he did not say when.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told The Associated Press that the case of the five Iranians detained in Irbil, the capital of the Kurdish self-governing region in northern Iraq, had no connection with the British captives.
Zebari, a Kurd, said his government had been relaying Iranian requests for a meeting with the five detainees, but could not confirm the request had been approved.
In a commentary, the Iranian news agency said the movement on the Iranian prisoner issue was due in part to "the new American political and military appointments in Iraq."
The agency was referring to Gen. David Petraeus, who assumed command of U.S. forces in February, and Ryan Crocker, who began work as the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq last month.
U.S. troops detained the five Iranians on Jan. 11, accusing them of links to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard network that was supplying money and weapons to insurgents in Iraq.
U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice said President George W. Bush had approved the strategy of raiding Iranian targets in Iraq as part of efforts to confront the government in Tehran.
Iraqi Kurds, like the country's Shiites, maintain close ties with Shiite-dominated Iran, despite their warm relationship with the U.S. - and have been upset over the arrests in their own capital.
Iran denounced the raid and insisted that the five were diplomats who were engaged exclusively in consular work. The Iraqi government said they were arrested at an office that was supposed to become an Iranian consulate. cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/04/04/3915732-ap.html |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 4, 2007 15:57:54 GMT -5
And then there were none. Good on Iran! British sailors freed
By NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the release of 15 captive British soldiers and sailors Wednesday in what he called an Easter gift to the British people.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said the Britons had been released, added that he bore "no ill-will" toward the Iranian people. As of 9 p.m. local time in Tehran, however, the Britons had not arrived at the British Embassy.
Alex Pinfield, first secretary of embassy in Tehran, said it's not clear when they will be handed over or where they are going to spend the night. He indicated the British "are still discussing the Iranian case with the Iranian foreign ministry."
Iranian state television showed the 14 men and one woman meeting with Ahmadinejad outside the presidential palace. They were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian Gulf on March 23. The state television said they would leave Iran on Thursday.(the rest) cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/04/04/3915732-ap.html |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 4, 2007 16:19:01 GMT -5
After Ahmadinejad's news conference, state television showed him meeting with the British crew, who were dressed in business suits, outside the presidential palace. He shook hands and chatted with them through a translator, and a caption to the video said the meeting was taking place as part of the "process of release."
"We appreciate it. Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.
Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."
Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi, "You are welcome."
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 4, 2007 18:06:33 GMT -5
" Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.
Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness." Question: sincere? I'd prefer to think so. Some will suggest otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 4, 2007 18:38:35 GMT -5
" Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.
Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness." Question: sincere? I'd prefer to think so. Some will suggest otherwise. Your not serious.....or are you? Monkey boy is SO NICE. I mean, first he sends out a huge snatch squad to kidnap people at gun point and then he parades his prisoners and now he sends them home. Have you ever seen a kinder, gentler, more forgiving person then that? Oh yeah....I have a picture of one....of Uncle Adolf.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 4, 2007 18:43:37 GMT -5
And then there were none. Good on Iran! British sailors freed
By NASSER KARIMI
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the release of 15 captive British soldiers and sailors Wednesday in what he called an Easter gift to the British people.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said the Britons had been released, added that he bore "no ill-will" toward the Iranian people. As of 9 p.m. local time in Tehran, however, the Britons had not arrived at the British Embassy.
Alex Pinfield, first secretary of embassy in Tehran, said it's not clear when they will be handed over or where they are going to spend the night. He indicated the British "are still discussing the Iranian case with the Iranian foreign ministry."
Iranian state television showed the 14 men and one woman meeting with Ahmadinejad outside the presidential palace. They were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian Gulf on March 23. The state television said they would leave Iran on Thursday.(the rest) cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/04/04/3915732-ap.htmlCould it be because...... There are three carrier groups ready to go and Russian military are warning Iranians that attack is imminent? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 4, 2007 18:46:16 GMT -5
After Ahmadinejad's news conference, state television showed him meeting with the British crew, who were dressed in business suits, outside the presidential palace. He shook hands and chatted with them through a translator, and a caption to the video said the meeting was taking place as part of the "process of release."
"We appreciate it. Your people have been really kind to us, and we appreciate it very much," one of the crew could be heard telling Ahmadinejad in English.
Another said: "We are grateful for your forgiveness."
Ahmadinejad responded in Farsi, "You are welcome." You do realize that they are suppose to say that. Right? It use to be name rank and serial number but now it has changed to "stay alive until we get you". |
|
