|
Those pesky Iranians at it again. (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
The area is a relatively 'small area'. |
The Shatt al-Arab waterway is a disputed point of demarcation, ever since the around the start of last century. It's a fuzzy area where Iran thinks they own this bit and the rest of the world (most notably Iraq in 1975 after the Algiers agreement which eventually blew up into the Iran-Iraq war in 1980 or so) sees it as being somewhere else.
| quote: |
If a bunch of Iranian soldiers happened to stray into The english channel or a KM from Bristol you think the Brits would be all rosy?
What if Russia was at war with France at the time? |
Now you're just ranging into the unreasonably hypothetical rather than the plausible. |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
p.s. you also better be damn straight the BBC and CNN would have it on the evening NEWS
I can see it now
THE IRANIANS ARE COMING, THE IRANIANS ARE COMING!!!
the bad joke..
what 15 British sailors in a rib boat can't take the Iranian navy?
The discrace. |
haha
Two rubber dingys v 6 armoured patrol vessels and a chopper they wouldn't stand a chance, unless they had Chuck Norris.
| quote: | | If a bunch of Iranian soldiers happened to stray into The english channel or a KM from Bristol you think the Brits would be all rosy? |
Of course not, but according to our GPS they were in Iraqi waters but as it's been stated it's a highly constested stretch of sea.
I heard earlier they involved in negotiations at the moment. Looks like they'll come to agreement soon and this silly situation will be over. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
The rest can be found here: HERE
Another source: HERE
I dont know what to believe here,I just hope this is all a myth and just some tactics trying toscare Iran to release the british hostages. |
It is all scaremongering and playing to the hawks in Israel and the U.S. that believe the only solution to any problem is with force.
Anyone who knows even a little bit about how the Defence department works knows that there are hundreds if not thousands of strike plans written up and "ready to go" on short notice for a whole bunch of situations all over the world. With today's global reach of air power and the ease of targeting of modern munitions, it literally would take less than 24 hours to launch a surgical strike with planes based in the U.S. and a matter of minutes to load a targeting package into tomahawks on one of the dozen+ ships in the Persian Gulf and press the little red button.
The fact is that none of the players in this want a shooting war over the situation, the Iranian regime (and to a lesser extent the U.K. and U.S.) are using this to bolster domestic support for their positions on a host of issues. "Showing backbone" is the only language some people understand, and events like this play to those constituents.
MrS |
|
|
| CHRles |
Actually, the resports about a possible US strike remind me of the days before the US launched a strike on Iraq...back in 1991.
If Iran was innocent in all of this, they wouldnt be parading the 15 captured Brits on state-run TV stations. They also wouldnt have gotten into some heat with the Saudis over territorial crossings several months back.
Iran's only semi-ally right now is Russia. The problem for Russia is the U.S. was smart enough to cooperate and collaborate with former Soviet countries like Georgia. All the former Soviet satellite states are trying to distance themselves from Russia and move closer to NATO and the U.S. Gee, now I wonder why all those countries don't want to be associated with the government in Moscow? I wonder what people in Hungary or the Czech Republic think of the Soviet Union when they look back at those times they tried to break away from it?
Whatever happens to Iran, chances are this WON'T lead to a World War. What it will do is scare the out of leaders in North Korea, Venezuela, and especially Syria. Hell, why do you guys think a bunch of Democrat leaders were visiting Syria this past week?... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
If Iran was innocent in all of this, they wouldnt be parading the 15 captured Brits on state-run TV stations. |
Because a parade of the enemy somehow constitutes, uhh, guilt? I'm afraid you lost me on that one.
| quote: | | They also wouldnt have gotten into some heat with the Saudis over territorial crossings several months back. |
You seem a bit eager to tie in their conflicts with the Saudis with this issue with the British. I'm not seeing the connection you are attempting to make very well, nor do I see how their tiffs with the Saudis somehow constitute guilt with the capture of the Brits. Your leaps of logic to your conclusions are becoming quite large.
| quote: | | Whatever happens to Iran, chances are this WON'T lead to a World War. What it will do is scare the out of leaders in North Korea, Venezuela, and especially Syria. Hell, why do you guys think a bunch of Democrat leaders were visiting Syria this past week?... |
Yes, Kim Jong-il is really quaking in his boots lately, ain't he? Chavez really is just dying to make-nice with Bush, right? And al-Asad, well, those visits suggested by Baker's Iraq Study Group and put forth by both Democratic and Republican Congressmen REALLY seem to have put al-Asad on a defensive stance, hasn't it?
Or maybe, just maybe this whole thing with the captured Brits has to deal with something else. Cast your mind back to that warm, soothing cup of cider on Christmas morn, when you had your comfies on and your favorite warm socks to cover your cold toesies, some very interesting things were developing elsewhere thanks entirely to Bush's lovely new " you Iran" policy in Iraq:
| quote: | The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington. ...
It was unclear what kind of evidence American officials possessed that the Iranians were planning attacks, and the officials would not identify those being held. ...
Nonetheless, the two raids, in central Baghdad, have deeply upset Iraqi government officials, who have been making strenuous efforts to engage Iran on matters of security. At least two of the Iranians were in this country on an invitation extended by Iraq's president, Jalal Talabani, during a visit to Tehran earlier this month. It was particularly awkward for the Iraqis that one of the raids took place in the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq's most powerful Shiite leaders, who traveled to Washington three weeks ago to meet President Bush.
http://select.nytimes.com/search/re...DAB0994DE404482 |
Remember way back when, a whole 3 months ago? Things have become very interesting, and it's becoming quite likely it was the result of Bush's policies to make Iran the ultimate BOOGIEMAN of Iraq's problems rather than fess up to the ultimate chaos being the fault of both Bush's missteps and the Iraqi government:
| quote: | The aim of the raid, launched without informing the Kurdish authorities, was to seize two men at the very heart of the Iranian security establishment.
Better understanding of the seriousness of the US action in Arbil - and the angry Iranian response to it - should have led Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence to realise that Iran was likely to retaliate against American or British forces such as highly vulnerable Navy search parties in the Gulf. The two senior Iranian officers the US sought to capture were Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, according to Kurdish officials.
The two men were in Kurdistan on an official visit during which they met the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and later saw Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), at his mountain headquarters overlooking Arbil.
"They were after Jafari," Fuad Hussein, the chief of staff of Massoud Barzani, told The Independent. He confirmed that the Iranian office had been established in Arbil for a long time and was often visited by Kurds obtaining documents to visit Iran. "The Americans thought he [Jafari] was there," said Mr Hussein.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world...icle2414760.ece |
|
|
|
| CHRles |
| Hate to break it to you, but everything I say is on point. Had you been following global news more closely, reading between the lines, instead of blaming Bush for everything you'd see that too. |
|
|
| jonSun |
Talks open in Iran sailor dispute
Iran and Britain have opened talks to resolve the row over 15 British naval personnel seized in the Gulf, the secretary of Iran's security council told state television.
"The British government has started diplomatic discussions with the foreign ministry to resolve the issue of the British military personnel," Ali Larijani said on Tuesday.
Tony Blair, the British prime minister said the next 48 hours would be "fairly critical" in moves to free the sailors.
"We're not looking for confrontation over this and actually the most important thing is to get the people back safe and sound. And if they [Iran] want to resolve this in a diplomatic way, the door is open."
But later Blair warned Iran that if a negotiated solution was not reached Britain would "have to take increasingly tougher decisions".
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...420A57D2C0A.htm |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by CHRles
Hate to break it to you, but everything I say is on point. |
Well I'm sure glad it's because you say so. Perhaps a little more sourcing could help support your arguments a bit better?
But then again, if you did that, you wouldn't be "breaking" anything to me.
| quote: | | Had you been following global news more closely, reading between the lines, instead of blaming Bush for everything you'd see that too. |
Bush's actions are very much a part of the damn predicament we're in right now in the Middle East. That much is well documented (to which I've done rather extensively on this forum over the years). Iraq is directly involved with our situation in Iran. Again, perhaps a bit more support of your argument with evidence rather than your conjecture and speculation from "reading between the lines" would give you a bit more credibility. Your handwaves of points that counters your argument won't get you very far here. |
|
|
| M.Johan |
for WTF WAR
Iran & Britain now show tact policy |
|
|
| M.Johan |
if this madass do it
DAMN HELL'll be occured |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Tony Blair, the British prime minister said the next 48 hours would be "fairly critical" in moves to free the sailors.
"We're not looking for confrontation over this and actually the most important thing is to get the people back safe and sound. And if they [Iran] want to resolve this in a diplomatic way, the door is open."
But later Blair warned Iran that if a negotiated solution was not reached Britain would "have to take increasingly tougher decisions".
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...420A57D2C0A.htm |
LOL, that's like jabbing someone in the gut then saying, "let's settle this in a civil manner, there's no need for violence." Blair is such an aweful liar tehe. |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, that's like jabbing someone in the gut then saying, "let's settle this in a civil manner, there's no need for violence." Blair is such an aweful liar tehe. |
Blair is a bit of bullter but his acting wisely. We're being civilised about this. The sooner out sailors are back the better and this situation can be brushed underneath the carpet.
Regardless of Blair and Bush being best mates and the mess in Iraq. These naval personnel deserve to be back on home shores and not be pawns between two nations. Iran in the whole course of this matter have acted like a load of ing cowboys and I've lost whatever amount respect I had for them. |
|
|
|
|
