Merovingian Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 It's plain to see why Iran invaded soveriegn Iraqi territory and took 15 British navy personal hostage. It is because they knew that the Brit's Will had already been broken. This is a classic move that a bully makes after they slapped you around a little and you tucked your tail between your legs, gave him the milk money and went on about your business. Iran is further testing the Will of the Brit's and they have to be feeling very good about themselves. I imagine that this situation could not have gone any better for them then it has so far. Consider that the once proud country has all but begged the USA and others to stay out of the situation because they are hoping to make nice with the terroists in Iran in hopes that they will release maybe one hostage per month for the next 15 months. All the while the insurgancy grows inside the UK right under the noses of the impotant leadership. What Blair should have done the day that the hostages were taken was make it perfectly clear (in a public manner) that this act of war and aggression would not be tolerated and that if the hostages were not released by noon that day then military action would be taken. It was Iran who started this totally unprovoked in any way shape or form. It should not have taken any more then 12 hours to formulate an overwhelming response to this act of war. Obviously they want it, otherwise they would not have asked for it. Of course there are those who will say "but that is what they are after, thye want us to respond that way" Well in that case they need double the response that they expected. Maybe that would keep them from invading thier neighbors territory and taking hostages. If this had happened (or does happen) to any US military personel I would expect nothing less then an overwhelming response from our country and our allies. Not some nonsense like asking the UN to tell them that they are being bad boys and asking them to please play nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 And that's why I'm glad it wasn't Americans, because it would be just the excuse the neo-cons in this country would use to start a war with Iran. Having 2 carriers in the area is bad enough because it only increases the chance of a confrontation. Did you consider the fact that the British aren't in a position to take military action in Iran, and perhaps they want to get the detainees out alive? I expect they will be released in the next couple of weeks. It may require the U.S. giving back the Iranians that were taken from their consulate, but it is preferable to a military exchange and bombs going off in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Me too! Not only that, but I wished they took a hell of a lot more than just 15. I wish they took a couple thousand Americans hostage! And then gave them the same treatment those Iraqis got in that Abu place. Butt pyramids galore, all over the tv news, then we would have to start murdering Iranians, and murdering them wholesale. Hopefully our thousands of hostages--perferably healthy young boys and girls between the ages of 16-22--would then be put to death on Iranian tv. We could really go all out then! I'm been prayer for other horrible things, like terror attacks, hurricanes, accidents that kill thousands that we can blame on those dern old Iranians. God has not answered my prayers yet, but there is still time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 And that's why I'm glad it wasn't Americans, because it would be just the excuse the neo-cons in this country would use to start a war with Iran. Having 2 carriers in the area is bad enough because it only increases the chance of a confrontation. Did you consider the fact that the British aren't in a position to take military action in Iran, and perhaps they want to get the detainees out alive? I expect they will be released in the next couple of weeks. It may require the U.S. giving back the Iranians that were taken from their consulate, but it is preferable to a military exchange and bombs going off in England. Sissy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merovingian Posted March 30, 2007 Author Share Posted March 30, 2007 And that's why I'm glad it wasn't Americans, because it would be just the excuse the neo-cons in this country would use to start a war with Iran. Having 2 carriers in the area is bad enough because it only increases the chance of a confrontation. Did you consider the fact that the British aren't in a position to take military action in Iran, and perhaps they want to get the detainees out alive? I expect they will be released in the next couple of weeks. It may require the U.S. giving back the Iranians that were taken from their consulate, but it is preferable to a military exchange and bombs going off in England. So pastajoe you agree that it is acceptable for the Iranians to take hostages at thier pleasure? I take it then that you also agree that the Iranian leaders saw the oppertunity to bully the weak UK and they took advantage of that as well. Whats next, explode a nuke over Isreal and ask the rest of the world just accept it? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Holy sh--. The board's seriously slipping when PastaJoe is the voice of reason in a thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 So pastajoe you agree that it is acceptable for the Iranians to take hostages at thier pleasure? I take it then that you also agree that the Iranian leaders saw the oppertunity to bully the weak UK and they took advantage of that as well. Whats next, explode a nuke over Isreal and ask the rest of the world just accept it? Just curious. I wouldn't raise taking detainees in a border dispute to the level of a nuke strike on Israel, they're not even close. It happened before in 2004 and it was resolved without military action, as will this one. I blame the British for this one, how stupid is it to send a group of marines to board an Iranian vessel without sufficient backup support in contested waters where tensions are high. Did they think the Iranians would just sit back and be pushed around? This is just what the Iranian leaders were hoping to happen for their domestic consumption and the Middle East to show that the West is threatening Iran's borders. I doubt the U.S. military would make a similar blunder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Holy sh--. The board's seriously slipping when PastaJoe is the voice of reason in a thread. Pass the popcorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Pass the popcorn. Ask Wacka for the popcorn, The View is over so he doesn't need it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickW Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 It's plain to see why Iran invaded soveriegn Iraqi territory and took 15 British navy personal hostage. It is because they knew that the Brit's Will had already been broken. This is a classic move that a bully makes after they slapped you around a little and you tucked your tail between your legs, gave him the milk money and went on about your business. Iran is further testing the Will of the Brit's and they have to be feeling very good about themselves. I imagine that this situation could not have gone any better for them then it has so far. Consider that the once proud country has all but begged the USA and others to stay out of the situation because they are hoping to make nice with the terroists in Iran in hopes that they will release maybe one hostage per month for the next 15 months. All the while the insurgancy grows inside the UK right under the noses of the impotant leadership. What Blair should have done the day that the hostages were taken was make it perfectly clear (in a public manner) that this act of war and aggression would not be tolerated and that if the hostages were not released by noon that day then military action would be taken. It was Iran who started this totally unprovoked in any way shape or form. It should not have taken any more then 12 hours to formulate an overwhelming response to this act of war. Obviously they want it, otherwise they would not have asked for it. Of course there are those who will say "but that is what they are after, thye want us to respond that way" Well in that case they need double the response that they expected. Maybe that would keep them from invading thier neighbors territory and taking hostages. If this had happened (or does happen) to any US military personel I would expect nothing less then an overwhelming response from our country and our allies. Not some nonsense like asking the UN to tell them that they are being bad boys and asking them to please play nice. Yeah, that was the response in "79. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 If this had happened (or does happen) to any US military personel I would expect nothing less then an overwhelming response from our country and our allies. Not some nonsense like asking the UN to tell them that they are being bad boys and asking them to please play nice. You mean like we did with China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 You mean like we did with China? good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Ask Wacka for the popcorn, The View is over so he doesn't need it anymore. Thanks. And you just keep smoking that talking points pipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I wouldn't raise taking detainees in a border dispute to the level of a nuke strike on Israel, they're not even close. It happened before in 2004 and it was resolved without military action, as will this one. I blame the British for this one, how stupid is it to send a group of marines to board an Iranian vessel without sufficient backup support in contested waters where tensions are high. Did they think the Iranians would just sit back and be pushed around? This is just what the Iranian leaders were hoping to happen for their domestic consumption and the Middle East to show that the West is threatening Iran's borders. I doubt the U.S. military would make a similar blunder. Please read before you post. The ship was an Indian cargo ship going to Iraq. The British normally board commercial ships, looking for smuggling. They found nothing and everything was fine. The Indian ship was at least 2 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. The Brits were headed back to their ship (Even farther inside Iraqi waters). The Iranians cme into Iraqi waters to kidnap the Brits. What is your obsession with the View? I heard about Rosie's insane rants on Opie and Anthony's show of all places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 It may require the U.S. giving back the Iranians that were taken from their consulate, but it is preferable to a military exchange and bombs going off in England. Didn't that already happend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Please read before you post. The ship was an Indian cargo ship going to Iraq. The British normally board commercial ships, looking for smuggling. They found nothing and everything was fine. The Indian ship was at least 2 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. The Brits were headed back to their ship (Even farther inside Iraqi waters). The Iranians cme into Iraqi waters to kidnap the Brits. What is your obsession with the View? I heard about Rosie's insane rants on Opie and Anthony's show of all places. My bad, the report I heard yesterday said it was an Iranian ship. But the Iranians still dispute where the ship was. Of course both sides will say they were in the right. It's not hard to manufacture pictures or documents to support their statements. Opie and Anthony? That might be worse than watching The View! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My bad, the report I heard yesterday said it was an Iranian ship. But the Iranians still dispute where the ship was. Of course both sides will say they were in the right. It's not hard to manufacture pictures or documents to support their statements. Opie and Anthony? That might be worse than watching The View! Are you more inclined to believe the Brits or Iran regarding the location of the ship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Are you more inclined to believe the Brits or Iran regarding the location of the ship? I don't think it matters where the ship was, the Iranians shouldn't have taken those men hostage. Its international piracy. If this was retaliation for the U.S. taking Iranian diplomats in Iraq then the Iranians should have said that, and it still doesn't justify this. If Iran feels wronged they should take their case to UN or start an international outcry or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I don't think it matters where the ship was, the Iranians shouldn't have taken those men hostage. Its international piracy. If this was retaliation for the U.S. taking Iranian diplomats in Iraq then the Iranians should have said that, and it still doesn't justify this. If Iran feels wronged they should take their case to UN or start an international outcry or something. Hmmm. How would this outcry to the UN help them meet their goals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Hmmm. How would this outcry to the UN help them meet their goals? It might get their diplomats, or whatever they are, back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts