British Sailors in Iranian hands ...

[dick van cock]

Once again a great post, but I got one question:

Iraq was becoming way belligerant, and was going farther afield in it's delusions of grandeur. When it finally forced the oil dependent West to save it's allies/sources of life supporting oil, we acted from world wide self interest.
:

Are you talking about 1991 or 2003?

I supported the Gulf War of Papa Bush but if you should mean 2003 I'd like to disagree.

 

[The Captain]

So which is it...the West (or the US) should leave everyone alone, to decide for themselves which part of their population to oppress and kill...or we should take charge and nail all the blatant bad guys? Seems like a rather child-like view of things, given that in our own lives we avoid most difficult choices until we have no choice but to deal with them.
Iraq was becoming way belligerant, and was going farther afield in it's delusions of grandeur. When it finally forced the oil dependent West to save it's allies/sources of life supporting oil, we acted from world wide self interest.
Since Saddam wasn't kept in any sort of check by a government of more than one controlling power, when he was seen as going for mass destruction weapons, and was obviously out of any control, I completely see the need to shut the egomanic down.
Same for any other immediate threat..eventually, it'd be great when most of the world's population can develop how they want, Muslim women running giant corporations and going out with their gfs for a fun night on the town; when gay bishops can preside over Easter Services, and any Muslim can choose to be a Christian or a buddist without a death sentence.
'Til then, any serious and immediate threat must be dealt with, and the less immediate dangers can be put off for later, using economic incentives and diplomatic avenues.
Things don't require an all or none strategy, they require to be dealt with on the level of their threat potential and their real time development.
When Saudi Arabia becomes an immediate danger, shit will happen. 'Til then, we keep the lid on as much as can be done,and play the age old chess game nations have been playing for the last several thousand years.
So, yeah, there are assholes who get to do business with the West, and noble leaders who lose their power. Any country who loses the game for survival wasn't playing hard or well enough to win, and let their population down. Egos shouldn't play such a large part in world politics, but they do. And people suffer the consequences.
I only hope reason and self interest combine in your own personal lives, those who espouse nothing or everything; in the greater scheme of things, survival is the main point, not approval.
:2 cents:

Well said.

 

[The Captain]

Once again a great post, but I got one question:Are you talking about 1991 or 2003?

I supported the Gulf War of Papa Bush but if you should mean 2003 I'd like to disagree.

2003 shouldn't have been necessary because the job should have been finished in 1991.

 

[Member2019]

Iran never invaded another country ...

Remember, Iran never invaded another country. In fact, Iraq invaded Iran and Iran was previously and greatly influenced internally by the west. Iran never even invaded and then did not surrender like North Korea, so it doesn't even have that mark against it.

So unlike Iraq, where the US, Japan and many other countries pointed to the cease-fire terms of 1991, the US has no international justification whatsoever to take military action against Iran. Now the US and its allies could try to justify taking out its centrifuges, but they'd have 0 authority to do so from the UN at any time in any resolution -- unlike Iraq which can be spun in many directions based on the resolution under consideration (and even North Korea, depending on how far you want to stretch it).

That all aside, there are 2 things one can deduce from this whole episode ...
1) Iran played to the Arab audience, not the international one
2) Iran got what it wanted, possibly something "in private" from the UK

Of course, #2 is complete speculation. But it makes sense.

Oh, and if you haven't heard it by now, the only reason you need 3,000 centrifuges is to make a nuclear WEAPON, not for "peaceful" terms. Iran wants to even build more, which is why everyone doesn't believe a word they say about their program being "peaceful."

Iran wants to spew the rhetoric. I don't see #1 getting them very far, just like it didn't for Chavez or Castro either. I.e., see some recent polls and studies on Chavez and Castro's popularity in Latin and South America -- no better, and even worse than W. in the case of Castro.

 

[BNF]

Give Iran credit - they learned quickly the lesson from North Korea: show nuclear capability, use it, talk about it.... and the Administration will give you something you want. (North Korea's getting their launderd money)

From this non-political watching poster's POV - the US has shown itself to be hardline in rhetoric, but soft as silk sheets on backing up the rhetoric.

Hey, maybe we can band together with the Prof, develop a program and get Bush to grant us special status.....

 

[Member2019]

I demand fuller, bustier, curvier women on TV! Or Else!

Give Iran credit - they learned quickly the lesson from North Korea: show nuclear capability, use it, talk about it.... and the Administration will give you something you want. (North Korea's getting their launderd money). From this non-political watching poster's POV - the US has shown itself to be hardline in rhetoric, but soft as silk sheets on backing up the rhetoric.

Agreed. Iraq cost us a lot well outside of the war itself.

Hey, maybe we can band together with the Prof, develop a program and get Bush to grant us special status.....

Yeah, I demand fuller, bustier, curvier women on TV!
Or else!

I mean, I used to work on missile defense.
I'm sure North Korea or Iran could use a little "help" in counter-counter-measures on their ballistic vehicles.

A car pulls up to Prof V's house, black helicopters overhead, men in black suits rush in, Prof V is carried out ... never to be seen or heard from again ...

 

[lovejoy]

1. First of all, I look at N. Korea as a joke. N. Korea is willing to give up nuclear weapon if US/China released 20 millions being on hold at a N. Korea Bank in Macao. What is 20 millions dollars? It must be a lot of money to the dirt poort N. Korean.

2. In contrast, Iran stood up and fought a 10 year war against United States which used Saddam Hassein as proxy. Iran although much bigger was losing the war until they used suicide bombers to attack Iraq troops.

3. If you are Iranians and on the right, there are 140,000 American troops in Iraq, on the left, there are 23,000 American troops and NATO Force in the neighboring country,and the British Navy is in your throat, the American huge naval fleets just outside Persian Gulf, what would you do ?

 

[Member2019]

2. In contrast, Iran stood up and fought a 10 year war against United States which used Saddam Hassein as proxy.

Among many other nations, including the Soviet Union (before the US' newfound interest after the fall of the Shah).
As much as people like to pin Saddam in the '80s on the US, showing a picture of Rumsfield, that's not the story.
And after '90-91, it's rather "interesting" on what was still exported to Iraq c/o France, Germany and Russia until Iraq was caught "red handed" in 1996.

3. If you are Iranians and on the right, there are 140,000 American troops in Iraq, on the left, there are 23,000 American troops and NATO Force in the neighboring country,and the British Navy is in your throat, the American huge naval fleets just outside Persian Gulf, what would you do?

Stir up as much shit in Iraq as possible, to keep the US busy.

 

[cabey]

I have never read so much crap as what Philbert has to write in this thread in all my life...
"A little knowledge is dangerous my friend!", seriously if any American needs to ask why the rest of the world have a dim opinion on them then read Philbert's posts.

And your opinions on your closest allies is uninformed, and insulting to me as a British military man. You have no idea of our 'Conduct upon capture' briefs, and the protocol we have to abide by.
Aside from that, the couple of posts you made are so far from reasonable thinking that i literally don't know where to start.
I sincerely hope your 'thinking' is a minority view point otherwise we're all in the shit!

Goodnight all:hatsoff:

 

[Philbert]

I guess you didn't read the signed statements of the captured Brits released by Iran.
Now that's crap...I guess as a former Brit military man, you were proud of their resistance to Iran's propaganda parade?
We Americans are a silly people, we don't admire military types who fawn on their captors and play along with whatever their captors want them to do.
Silly us...we admire our soldiers who stand up to their captors and take whatever happens rather than give the enemy cheesy photo ops and written/verbal statements that build them up and tear down our countries' position, etc.
Nice suits...
Our Embassy staff made a much better stand and held up for over a year of brutal treatment; but I'll wait 'til you finally figure out where to start.
I am looking forward to your intelligent and well reasoned post on the subject...being as ignorant and unreasonable as I am, I look forward to learning from you.
Unfortunately, I don't think I am in a minority, so I guess you are "in the shit".

 

[blakey]

I think some of the posts on this thread highlight a growing difference of opinion between the US and the UK, more clearly perhaps at the public rather than government level

Now i know ( or certainly think ) that some members on here won't give a shit whether any future military action in the middle east taken by the US happens without the support of the UK

so they won't be upset when I say that there are pretty much NO circumstances ( except eg pre-empitive Iranian nuclear strike against Israel )where a UK government could sell the idea of military action against Iran to the British people - and after the total debacle in Iraq, a UK government is not going to be able to start a war on the basis of what is known in these parts as a "dodgy dossier"

it's just not going to happen - whoever is in the UK government

as i've said i realise that this might not be considered that important, but i'd think it would be more difficult, politically and militariliy, for the US to undertake a miriad of future interventions without some form of "coalition", however flimsy

:2 cents:

 

[The Captain]

I think some of the posts on this thread highlight a growing difference of opinion between the US and the UK, more clearly perhaps at the public rather than government level

Now i know ( or certainly think ) that some members on here won't give a shit whether any future military action in the middle east taken by the US happens without the support of the UK

so they won't be upset when I say that there are pretty much NO circumstances ( except eg pre-empitive Iranian nuclear strike against Israel )where a UK government could sell the idea of military action against Iran to the British people - and after the total debacle in Iraq, a UK government is not going to be able to start a war on the basis of what is known in these parts as a "dodgy dossier"

it's just not going to happen - whoever is in the UK government

as i've said i realise that this might not be considered that important, but i'd think it would be more difficult, politically and militariliy, for the US to undertake a miriad of future interventions without some form of "coalition", however flimsy

:2 cents:

I just hope you folks rebuild your Military Forces so when the "real" war finally does come about, The U.S. will have some help. Personally I'd rather have you guys as allies than anyone else.

 

[Member2019]

I think some of the posts on this thread highlight a growing difference of opinion between the US and the UK, more clearly perhaps at the public rather than government level

Yes, some Brits question why they are so "friendly" now that the Soviet Union is gone.
They believe the US is a burden and weight on them.

HINT: What companies own the US Federal Reserve and how much of that is held by British citizens and Royalty?

UK interests are served by US interests, even if they are not well publicly proliferated by the state-run UK media.
It's one of those major, lesser known facts -- the UK economy is tied to the US economy.

Including the UK's reliance of foreign materials more than the US from select regions, at least percentage-wise.
So these Brits are looking at us instead of looking at themselves.

It's easier to do that than face up to the reality.

 

[HeartBroker]

If the US let Isreal "out to play" the Iranian nuclear thing would be over.

(Remember Iraq's nuclear plant?)

 

[blakey]

I just hope you folks rebuild your Military Forces so when the "real" war finally does come about, The U.S. will have some help. Personally I'd rather have you guys as allies than anyone else.

I still think most Brits still consider themselves natural allies with the US and like < at least parts of > the people, culture and US of A itself in general

at the moment though, Gerorge W isn't very popular, nor is the idea of any military escapades in the middle east in the next few years

but if & when another "real" war does come along i hope & believe they'll stick together

( it just might be the interpretation of "real" that is difficult ..... :o )

 

[georges]

I still think most Brits still consider themselves natural allies with the US and like < at least parts of > the people, culture and US of A itself in general

at the moment though, Gerorge W isn't very popular, nor is the idea of any military escapades in the middle east in the next few years

but if & when another "real" war does come along i hope & believe they'll stick together

( it just might be the interpretation of "real" that is difficult ..... :o )

The real war will come when Ahmadinejad does a mistake. At this moment, we will have to wreck the shit out of him.

 

[dick van cock]

If the US let Isreal "out to play" the Iranian nuclear thing would be over.

(Remember Iraq's nuclear plant?)

I wish it would be as easy as Osirak 1981. Iran has scattered its nuclear facilities all over the country. Many important sites are dug up deep underground. It'll be more than a one-bomb job to destroy their facilities.

Good news: Many experts believe Ahmadinejad was bluffing when he claimed that his country had closed the uranium enrichment cycle:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1608475,00.html

 

[georges]

Paveway II LGB bombs and Have Nap precisions bomb, you can do precisions deep strikes. The other solution would be the nuclear ICBM Trident IID5 that would damage Iran for ever.

 

[oberonfoto]

Paveway II LGB bombs and Have Nap precisions bomb, you can do precisions deep strikes. The other solution would be the nuclear ICBM Trident IID5 that would damage Iran for ever.

And kill a lot of innocent people into the bargain!!! Typical of the Yanks, shoot first then ask questions afterwards! When was the US elected World Cop?

 

[The Captain]

I still think most Brits still consider themselves natural allies with the US and like < at least parts of > the people, culture and US of A itself in general

at the moment though, Gerorge W isn't very popular, nor is the idea of any military escapades in the middle east in the next few years

but if & when another "real" war does come along i hope & believe they'll stick together

( it just might be the interpretation of "real" that is difficult ..... :o )

I use the term "real" war because I don't consider the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq to be "real" wars. These are local brush fire incidents that require some international police work to clean up, and they shouldn't have been allowed to get this out of hand or take this long. It shouldn't have taken more than 2 years each to complete both operations. The fact that the combined force of the U.S. and U.K. can't complete what should be simple police work shows just how much our once mighty militaries have fallen into under staffed, underequipped, and unprepared forces, that are a disgrace when compared to what they were 20+years ago.