Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/1/07 01:19 AM, JoS wrote:
Too bad we live in a world governed by laws and not morals.

So you bitch about ppl following laws and not morals, yet most of the problems you seem to have with the US is that we broke some kind of "law?"

Why don't you come back when you have a real argument.

At 3/31/07 11:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You only contribute 1/20th the amount of troops that the US does. Big deal, the US could have done it without you easily, the UK military forces were under US command anyway. But I love it how even though your country's parliament authorized military action against Iraq, and your PM was all for it, somehow it's just "America's war" and that you just "helped us" even though your country was just as enthused about it at the time as we were.

I think your missing the point here. Replying to the statement that the UK was 'pulling out of the middle east because we think it isn't a problem anymore' is a very unfair statement which I was responding to. However, you seem to be under the delusion that the majority of British citizens wanted to go to war with Iraq. However, even though we entered the war under false pretenses from our government, we did enter the war, and the responsability for it is also ours too - of that, I have no doubt. But simply tranferring troops from one battle to another one (one that is in my view much more relevant to the actual mission) is not 'fleeing from the middle east'.

but we have put more of our resources into the Afghan conflict, the ACTUAL reason we went into the Middle East in the first place. Do your research before you open your mouth, fool.

No you haven't. The US has about twice as many troops in Afghanistan as the UK does under NATO command (12,500 compared to 7,000). But the US has 12,000 more under separate US command. This means the US has more than 3 times as many troops there.... Not to mention the fact that the US gives almost all of the economic and military aide to the Afghanis, does basically all of the fighting, and is relied upon for basically all of the air support and logistics.

12,500 compared to 7,700. That's really not that much of a difference considering the overall size of our forces. And, pray tell, how many of this 'collossal' force of 12,500 are helping us with our battles in Helmand? Because I believe that the majority of US forces are deployed quite a way away from the fighting. Much closer to the nice, safe capital.

Kill first, ask questions later. I'm so glad you've taken it upon yourself to police the world this way.

I love it when delusional Britons (like you) accuse the US of doing things that your own country does. You silly little monkies are the biggest hypocrites.

What an adult statement to make

So you think the US is "policing" the world? So you think that just because your country has less military power that this means your country is "policing the world" any less?

Did I ever say that Britain is not trying to police the world? No. I was simply making a statement about how stupid the 'kill first, ask questions later' stance to Iran was.

You think that just because your country's forces don't actually fight in Iraq anymore that this somehow means your country can't be blamed for whatever you find wrong about invasion of Iraq in the first place?

No, and I believe that you are putting words in my mouth to be quite honest. Are you sure its me your arguing with? I accept that my country has a lot to answer for.

I love how utterly dysfunctional your mindset is. It's like your anti-US bias has destroyed parts of your brain, causing you to completely ignore some inconvenient truths, all while you emphasize other things to further your grudge against the US and salvage your national pride at the same time.

I am far from being anti-US. I think if you study my past record, I have been a adamant supported of many things that the US has done. I honestly believe that you are just taking some misguided anger out on someone who has said nothing wrong.

America has become your country's scapegoat. You bite the hand that feeds you and ignore your own problems by focusing on the US. You can exploit all the benefits of having the US as your ally, and pretend that you were an equal in achieving what the US achieved. But then when things that the US (and the UK) does receives criticism, you automatically rest all the blame on the US for it and find yourself guiltless and dissociate yourself from the US. You're fucking pathetic.

Fucking pathetic? Well aren't you a super debater. I truly, and believe me on this, feel quite sorry for you. To be able to spout such angry comments over what was a quite harmless post is nothing short of moronic. I don't want you to take that the wrong way. Just please, in the future, think before you post. I am a big supporter of the Anglo-American Alliance, and while I accept that we are by far the junior partner in it, I also believe that we deserve some measure of respect for publically standing by you. Honest opinion, nothing more.

At 4/1/07 02:55 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

But simply tranferring troops from one battle to another one (one that is in my view much more relevant to the actual mission) is not 'fleeing from the middle east'.

That looks like an attempt of an excuse so you don't have to say "RUN!".

At 4/1/07 03:54 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/1/07 02:55 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

But simply tranferring troops from one battle to another one (one that is in my view much more relevant to the actual mission) is not 'fleeing from the middle east'.

That looks like an attempt of an excuse so you don't have to say "RUN!".

I disagree. The fighting in Helmand has been pretty fierce of late, and the matter of fact is that we are low on manpower to fight our battles.

We needed reinforcements, and we are committed to the battle in the middle-east, even if it isn't popular.

At 4/1/07 04:00 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

I disagree. The fighting in Helmand has been pretty fierce of late, and the matter of fact is that we are low on manpower to fight our battles.

You honestly can't tell me you don't have any more military you can ship over.

We needed reinforcements, and we are committed to the battle in the middle-east, even if it isn't popular.

The problem is, there is a record number of stupid people in America and especially everywhere else. Pretty much all your nation does is blame the States for your problems in Iraq.

At 4/1/07 04:03 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/1/07 04:00 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

I disagree. The fighting in Helmand has been pretty fierce of late, and the matter of fact is that we are low on manpower to fight our battles.

You honestly can't tell me you don't have any more military you can ship over.

Well, yes, that's pretty much what I am saying. I think we both know it isn't easy to secure more troops to come over from home, whether that is the US or the UK. So taking troops out of one and putting them into another is a much better way to do it, as it doesn't annoy the public as much. We aren't the US army, we have extremely limited resources to play with.

We needed reinforcements, and we are committed to the battle in the middle-east, even if it isn't popular.

The problem is, there is a record number of stupid people in America and especially everywhere else. Pretty much all your nation does is blame the States for your problems in Iraq.

I agree. People do love the bandwagon, don't they?

At 4/1/07 08:59 AM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Yea, um Britain has nothing to apologize for. Iran is, well bluntly, retarded. You do not capture troops out of your waters, lie about it, force feed them Pro-Iranian propaganda, and demand an apology. Iran is gonna cause a major war soon sadly. You saw that one British women, see was telling UK to get out of Iraq, WHERE SHE WAS CAPTURED. If they captured the sailors because they were in Iranian water, she would say get out of Iran. But its clear what their real motive is, absolute power in the middle east.

That is why I feel that if Iran is in the wrong and not the UK (which Iran is claiming) then saying "We would like our people back please" And all this political shit which seems to imply that a peaceful negotiation isn't going to happen and that getting the sailors back while keeping the relations Iran and the UK has now, is also not going to happen.

So 40 SAS soldiers fully armed go get them back would be my personal choice. But that is only if Iran is in the wrong which they seem to have fucked that conclusion out the door.

Yet more insanity from the Iranians:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_
mi_ea/british_seized_iran

At 4/1/07 07:39 PM, EmperorManpig wrote: Yet more insanity from the Iranians:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_
mi_ea/british_seized_iran

Such idiots, they do not realize what they are doing. Yup, "according to the map they showed us!"

At 4/1/07 08:37 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote:

At 4/1/07 07:39 PM, EmperorManpig wrote: Yet more insanity from the Iranians:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_
mi_ea/british_seized_iran

Such idiots, they do not realize what they are doing. Yup, "according to the map they showed us!"

As opposed to the UK of "yup the GPS"?

Jos, please do not tell me you trust Iran over the UK. I mean, come on, everything points to Iran.

At 4/1/07 08:45 PM, JoS wrote:

At 4/1/07 08:37 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote:

At 4/1/07 07:39 PM, EmperorManpig wrote: Yet more insanity from the Iranians:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_
mi_ea/british_seized_iran

Such idiots, they do not realize what they are doing. Yup, "according to the map they showed us!"

As opposed to the UK of "yup the GPS"?

Wait... so you're saying that a paper map is more reliable than military GPS?

Also, nevermind the fact that the initial coordinates the Iranians used to base their finding that the British troops were in Iranian waters actually turned out to be within Iraqi waters.

At 4/1/07 08:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/1/07 08:45 PM, JoS wrote:

At 4/1/07 08:37 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote:

At 4/1/07 07:39 PM, EmperorManpig wrote: Yet more insanity from the Iranians:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_
mi_ea/british_seized_iran

Such idiots, they do not realize what they are doing. Yup, "according to the map they showed us!"

As opposed to the UK of "yup the GPS"?

Wait... so you're saying that a paper map is more reliable than military GPS?

Also, nevermind the fact that the initial coordinates the Iranians used to base their finding that the British troops were in Iranian waters actually turned out to be within Iraqi waters.

No, I clearly believe this to be a tool of propaganda. Both sides are putting on shows.

As a side note I would like to point out the the Iranian police have continued to defend the UK embassy against hundreds of protesters. So its not liek they have a total hatered for the UK, otherwise theyw oudl just allow the protesters to storm the embassy....again.

I think the Iranians are planning to incite the next war. They're actions seem unresonable and they are very risky. Why else would they flaunt westerners as they have, also making the threats to execute?

So if Jordan kidnapped Israeli troops, would Israel be justified conducting a raid to rescue them?

At 4/2/07 12:25 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: So if Jordan kidnapped Israeli troops, would Israel be justified conducting a raid to rescue them?

Is this a question to me?

I think diplomacy is the best way to go. If all else fails and there is a break down in talks, the ends justify the means, however it is not a first option, and there still is dialog between Iran and the UK.

I ask this question to you, is Iran justified in conducting a raid to rescue its troops who are being held in Iraq?

I ask this question to you, is Iran justified in conducting a raid to rescue its troops who are being held in Iraq?

I know you weren't asking me, but I'd like to respond as well if you don't mind. :)

My answer would be:
Depends. On whose authority are the Iranian troops in Iraq to begin with? As seen in the news, the Brits were in the water as part of a UN mandated operation. But there is no such mandate for Iranian troops to be in Iraq as far as I know....

Plus, if they pulled such a stunt, it would negate the possibility of denying Iranian military operations in Iraq, something that I believe is a no-no according to the UN.....so the chances of such an operation occuring are slim.....

As far as I know, I believe their stance thus far has been that the soldiers are not acting in accordance with the government (somehow I doubt that). This gives the government the distance from them when they get captured or killed (you know, the whole MI "if you are caught, we will deny any knowledge of your actions" type stuff).

So, as is, no, they don't have the justification.

At 4/1/07 08:37 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_
mi_ea/british_seized_iran

Such idiots, they do not realize what they are doing. Yup, "according to the map they showed us!"

You can feel the guns pointed at their heads from behind the cameras on these videos, anything that a state publically broadcasts from, dare I use the h word ( hostages ), IMO shouldn't be regarded as fact by anyone.

At 4/2/07 01:21 AM, JoS wrote:

At 4/2/07 12:25 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: So if Jordan kidnapped Israeli troops, would Israel be justified conducting a raid to rescue them?

Is this a question to me?

I think diplomacy is the best way to go. If all else fails and there is a break down in talks, the ends justify the means, however it is not a first option, and there still is dialog between Iran and the UK.

What talks? They've been held hostage now for longer than any "talks" needed to take place. If no concessions were ever meant to given, which wouldn't be surprising from the Sharia lot, then what they still doing in Iranian custody? He whole point of kidnapping people is to grab attention to further your agenda, turning whatever actions that're taken to rectify the situation into brilliant examples of greed, impunity, arrogance, whatever else you people like to pin on the West.

I ask this question to you, is Iran justified in conducting a raid to rescue its troops who are being held in Iraq?

Yes.

And it's also justified when they're neutralized.

You may be missing the analogy, I never know with you . . . are you trying to say we US troops (or British for that matter) cross Iranian borders and detain their soldiers on trespassing charges?

Equivocation isn't a key to understanding.

At 4/1/07 02:21 PM, JoS wrote: I never said anything. Actually I believe I implied that I have no passed judgement on the current Iran situation either way until there is proof one side was clearly in the wrong.

I wait with baited breath for either side to admit wrong. But while Im doing that, lets compare notes on the two countries. One has a proud history of democracy, respect for human rights, a free press, and a humanitarian citizenry. The other has brigades of martyrs, a state propaganda machine known as their press, repeated cries to destroy Israel, a constant disregard for human rights, a fatwa issued to approve the use of nuclear weapons, a state controlled by a crazed system of mullahs and Ayatollahs, another fatwa issued to murder a "blasphemer" of Islam, among other crazed shit.

Give me one compelling reason to trust the Iranians farther than I can throw them. One. What credibility do they have. What.

Might I remind of of the Gulf of Tonkin.

Yes because we totally planned this. We knew if we sent the Brits out to .5 nautical miles (the Iranians claim after their initial mishap of claiming the Brits were in Iraqi waters) into Iranians waters on what appears to be a routine boarding operation like the one that has been happening for the previous 4 years, the Iranians would send 6 vessles filled with Revolutionary Guard to take these 15 soldiers back to Tehran to parade them about for weeks like some animals, in the process enraging the West and its citizenry at Iran's arrogance and craziness. Totally planned.

If the USA was trying to do something morally correct they would not have gone for Iraq, they would have gone for Darfur, or one of the many other countries who were in situations far worse than Iraq.

One, I never pretended we did this wholeheartedly out of a motive to do right. I never did. Two, the UN seems content to let people die in the Congo and in Darfur and talk about it day and night and do nothing. Why should the USA worry about it when the UN, the doer of all good there is to be done, the righteous voice of Anti-Americanism, cant even be damned to do more than talk about it. The United States has nothing to gain by "unilaterally" occupying a backwards dump with nothing in their country worth a shit to fight for. You want realism, thats as real as it gets.

If it was completely legal why didn't the US inform the Iraqi government of their actions or bring along Iraqi forces as they usually do when they makes raids and arrests? I will tell you, because it was not completely legal, it was a very greyish area.

As they like to say (I dont know who they are) there is no grey in law. It is a law or it isnt a law. It is a rule or it isnt a rule. Bitch all you want, it was legal.

And you claimed we usually take Iraqis on raids of high profile targets that we want, lets see the link. Because I have one example that already proves you wrong, his name starts with a Z and ends with an arqawi. Delta Force brought in the airstrike alone. No Iraqis except for mop-up duty.

I was simply pointing out the problems with other peoples arguements saying that Iran's actions were illegal under internationally law, while ignoring the fact that the US and UK have repeatedly also ignored intenrational law. I am not argueing two wrongs make a right, nor that either party is okay.

One, yes you were arguing that. Two, red herring, again.

What culture?

OH GOOD LORD. This is the icing on the cake. You Canadians should know, you are the largest recipent of our culture in the form of music, our way of speaking, our sports, our movies, the way we eat, our religion, our books, our history, the way we dress, the way we drink, etc. But hey, your right, we dont have a culture, we are just some lousy Americans.

They broke no laws by invading Iraq? They broke no laws regarding the treatment of POWs (Abu Gharb, Gitmo). Your patriotism blinds you to all the wrong doings of your country. When you break the law its okay, but not when Iran breaks the law?

I was referring to your comparison of the "consular" raid. And again with the red herrings. You want a thread about the legitimacy of the invasion, get it up. You want a thread to explain all of Americas ills, get it up. Its not an issue here and only a distraction.

At 4/2/07 12:05 AM, JoS wrote: As a side note I would like to point out the the Iranian police have continued to defend the UK embassy against hundreds of protesters. So its not liek they have a total hatered for the UK, otherwise theyw oudl just allow the protesters to storm the embassy....again.

AHHH!!! Its my favorite debate technique of the Israel supporters used by an. . . IRANIAN SUPPORTER!! ITS THE "WE LOVE YOU BECAUSE WE DONT KILL YOU" DEFENSE!!! YEAH!!!

What an ironic occurance. The "Israel Defense" rears its ugly head now in the form of the "Iranian Defense!!"

At 4/2/07 09:45 AM, Demosthenez wrote: I wait with baited breath for either side to admit wrong. But while Im doing that, lets compare notes on the two countries. One has a proud history of democracy, respect for human rights, a free press, and a humanitarian citizenry.

If you call conquering half the world by military force democracy and respecting human rights. They butchered people in countries all over the world for their own gain. One country they exploited comes to mind, IRAN.

The other has brigades of martyrs, a state propaganda machine known as their press, repeated cries to destroy Israel, a constant disregard for human rights, a fatwa issued to approve the use of nuclear weapons, a state controlled by a crazed system of mullahs and Ayatollahs, another fatwa issued to murder a "blasphemer" of Islam, among other crazed shit.

I never said Iran was an oasis. And please provide a link to where it says they have a fatwa for acquiring nuclear weapons. Last I heard they had one against it. Lets not forget though Iran is a democracy, they elect their president, the mullahs do not have complete control of the country as you claim.

One, I never pretended we did this wholeheartedly out of a motive to do right. I never did. Two, the UN seems content to let people die in the Congo and in Darfur and talk about it day and night and do nothing.

The UN has no military to send when they do make a resolution to stop the killings. It is then the responsibility of member nations to contribute troops. If you combine the troop and police contributions of all NATO countries combined (26 of the richest and most powerful militaries) they would come in fourth for number of troops. And why don't we look at why the UN cant seem to get stuff done. Oh yeah the silly veto idea. Do you know why the UNSC did not adopt strong language on Rwanda or give them a more powerful mandate, because the US threatend to veto anything that used the word genocide and did not want to allow for a strong message to be sent.

If it was completely legal why didn't the US inform the Iraqi government of their actions or bring along Iraqi forces as they usually do when they makes raids and arrests? I will tell you, because it was not completely legal, it was a very greyish area.

And you claimed we usually take Iraqis on raids of high profile targets that we want, lets see the link. Because I have one example that already proves you wrong, his name starts with a Z and ends with an arqawi. Delta Force brought in the airstrike alone. No Iraqis except for mop-up duty.

There is a difference between airstrikes to kill people and raids to arrest people. One of the articles someone else linked to said the Iraqi FM was confused as why they did not bring along Iraqis as they normally do, nor did they inform the Iraqi gov't of their actions beforehand as is the case with other actions.

One, yes you were arguing that. Two, red herring, again.

No, I pointed it out, someone then tried to argue it with me.

OH GOOD LORD. This is the icing on the cake. You Canadians should know, you are the largest recipent of our culture in the form of music, our way of speaking, our sports, our movies, the way we eat, our religion, our books, our history, the way we dress, the way we drink, etc. But hey, your right, we dont have a culture, we are just some lousy Americans.

We watch your sports, you mean the ones other people invented like hockey, basketball, volleyball, football (its derived from a form of rugby), we listen to your music like Sum 41, Our Lady Peace, Barenaked Ladies, Nickleback, GOB, Finger 11 and the list goes on. We watch your TV and movies staring Canadians like Jim Carrey, Michael J Fox, Kieffer Sutherland, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Neilson, Tom Cruise. Or do you mean you food that generally is not actually from the US but is invented elsewhere and brought over by new immigrants.

At 4/2/07 12:05 AM, JoS wrote: As a side note I would like to point out the the Iranian police have continued to defend the UK embassy against hundreds of protesters. So its not liek they have a total hatered for the UK, otherwise theyw oudl just allow the protesters to storm the embassy....again.

AHHH!!! Its my favorite debate technique of the Israel supporters used by an. . . IRANIAN SUPPORTER!! ITS THE "WE LOVE YOU BECAUSE WE DONT KILL YOU" DEFENSE!!! YEAH!!!

What an ironic occurance. The "Israel Defense" rears its ugly head now in the form of the "Iranian Defense!!"

I never said they love you. I said they continue to defend your embassy even when you are threatening them with economic sanctions, you have exploited them heavily in the past and other not so nice things. They clearly do not love you, nor could they kill you, but they could just let the mobs have a couple of your diplomatic staff.

At 4/2/07 12:03 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/2/07 12:05 AM, JoS wrote: No, I clearly believe this to be a tool of propaganda. Both sides are putting on shows.

What exactly do you mean by: "tool of propaganda"? Don't you believe the UK wants it's sailors back and this dillema over asap?

I think what he means is that the UK, as well as the US, is trying to use this situation to make Iran look worse than it already does.

Ok, so I changed my tune a bit. I think we have played this just about right. The use of quite diplomacy as opposed to military force is pretty much a necessity. First off, we really don't know who is calling the shots in Iran any more, but its starting to look more and more like the republican guard are, and ahmedinejad is out of the loop, at least a little. Also, for all you American wanna be cowboys, look where your excessive use of force got us in Iraq. The Iraq war and its consequences will be around for decades now, terrorism is only going to increase, everyone hates America and her allies because of the innocent deaths that neo-conservative war lovers calling the shots create.

Say we do attack them: - Iraq goes right out of control, you'll have all the religious sects hating you then, and Iranian army weapons would become commonplace for the resistance in both countries. They attack ships taking oil to america etc, our economies gets even worse. The middle east goes down the toilet, Israel takes an increase beating from the shitloads of extremists we'd create, no-one wins.

Or we just get them to give them back.

At 4/2/07 12:11 PM, emmytee wrote:

Or we just get them to give them back.

Just when I thought I wouldn't have to see you parading your stupidity around the forum again, you show up.

At 4/2/07 11:56 AM, JoS wrote: If you call conquering half the world by military force democracy and respecting human rights. They butchered people in countries all over the world for their own gain. One country they exploited comes to mind, IRAN.

I knew this would go down familiar territory. Yes, lets all examine the white mans burden and the more modern white mans guilt.

I dont have any funerary records on hand, but do you happen to know off hand if any of these white men that "exploited" other countries are still alive? Are these white men who indiscriminatly slaughtered still alive? Do we still follow their policies? Is that a no? Even the vaunted Kermit Roosevelt Jr. who you are alluding to in the Iran refernece is dead, has been for almost a decade.

Now Iran on the other hand is currently in the hands of a crazed leadership that is thousands of times crazier and more despotic than Britain. Again, tell me, who should I trust? The country that has so much respect for human life that even a couple hundred soldiers deaths is now seen as a high price to pay or the country with literally thousands of martyrs on call?

And please provide a link to where it says they have a fatwa for acquiring nuclear weapons.

With pleasure. Also, did you know that not only have they justified their use, they also offer to share their nuclear secrets. What nice people!!

Lets not forget though Iran is a democracy, they elect their president, the mullahs do not have complete control of the country as you claim.

Democracy? Hardly. When you have a governing council of the Iranian clerics vetting the people even allowed to run for office, you have problems. Iran is no more a democracy than Zimbabwe or Egypt is. The people may vote on leaders, but everything significant is decided by the clerics.

Do you know why the UNSC did not adopt strong language on Rwanda or give them a more powerful mandate, because the US threatend to veto anything that used the word genocide and did not want to allow for a strong message to be sent.

Oh, the US is playing word games in the UN? For shame, I mean, its not like the UN is the institution thats only job is to play semantics. That is a rather peculiar irony, the institution that does nothing but play semantics with the United States and they get semanticed themselves? Wait, no, irony is the wrong term, I think what I am looking for is "another day at the UN." And "strong message?" The only "message" that would matter would be that one that takes action and not the incessent hand wringing and bemoaning the horrid conditions of the poor Africans that is all the UN does.

Anyways, I would like to see a link the other nations were pushing to stick the word "genocide" in there and only the USA was against it.

There is a difference between airstrikes to kill people and raids to arrest people.

Im still waiting for a link stating, like you did, the Americans typically bring along the Iraqis to take out high profile targets.

Or do you mean you food that generally is not actually from the US but is invented elsewhere and brought over by new immigrants.

HAHA cute. Go ahead and keep decrying the lack of an American culture. Its so damned childish it just has to bring a smile to your face. Because let me ask you, where would your Sum 41's and Nicklebacks be without American record companies and the tremendous number of American artists that preceeded them and helped influence their style? Where would your Jim Carreys be without Hollywood? The booming film industry of Toronto? If you want to pathetically keep asserting there is no American culture, be my guest. Because I can prove you wrong simply by going to a McDonalds in China and listening to Britney Spears in Japan and watching an 300 in France and listening to Tupac Shakur in Senegal and reading Stephen King in Bolivia. But of course, this is not our culture, it is just some wierd perversion and shadow of culture slapped together by people who stole others culture and never did anything ingenous of their own.

And about your "inventing" assertion. The Persians didnt seem to invent Islam yet they still identify themselves culturally as Muslims. Must mean they have no culture of their own.

Anyways, if you genuinely ever find a "culture" that has not borrowed, refined, and made someone elses their own, you are going to be a rich, rich, rich, man for finding what no anthropologist would ever dream of finding, a culture defined by complete cultural isolation.

They clearly do not love you, nor could they kill you, but they could just let the mobs have a couple of your diplomatic staff.

There would be no more threatening if this happened. This is sacrosanct territory, you dont fuck with embassys and their personell. If Iran did this they would be hammered by sanctions and completly isolated from the world. No more strongarming, no more saber rattling, no more delaying actions, no more distractions, they would be hammered by the world.

They are militarily, economically, and socially weak as shit now. They are in no position to play chicken with the worlds governments like that and damn well know it.

At 4/2/07 12:15 AM, drozzykingofrock wrote: I think the Iranians are planning to incite the next war. They're actions seem unresonable and they are very risky. Why else would they flaunt westerners as they have, also making the threats to execute?

I do not think the Iranians have war on their minds. What I believe is going through their heads is creating an international incident for domestic consumption (we see the same thing in N. Korea). They see the domestic pressure on Bush and Blair to pull out of Iraq, they know we do not have the military resources to mount any kindof invasion or sustained military campaign against Tehran. Simply put...they are planning to use them as leverage to gain concessions from the West.

In the future I think the UK and US should have air cover for ship inspections and when we see the Iranian Navy approaching...light them up once they cross the border with no questions asked.

All Soldiers admit tresspass

Aparently, the other 11 soldiers have now admited to tresspassing, but won't be broadcast on TV due to "Britains changed attitude". This is the fucking stupedest thing I've ever heard. They either know that the videos have been analysed and show signs of discontent and hence refuse to show any more, or the other 11 are being mistreated and tortured and Iran don't want to let the world see the state they're in. The simple fact that the Iranian news used the term "clamorous British government policies" shows how they're brainwashing everyone.

At 4/2/07 12:07 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

At 4/2/07 12:03 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/2/07 12:05 AM, JoS wrote: No, I clearly believe this to be a tool of propaganda. Both sides are putting on shows.

What exactly do you mean by: "tool of propaganda"? Don't you believe the UK wants it's sailors back and this dillema over asap?

I think what he means is that the UK, as well as the US, is trying to use this situation to make Iran look worse than it already does.

they don't need any help Iran is fucked up, they need to release the troops, they constantly do thing to make themselves targets of the western world. as we speak they help the insurgency in Iraq, to undermine progress in any reconstruction.

I am getting the felling they are wanting to start a war, and that is not a very pleasant idea.

At 4/2/07 01:40 PM, HappyCheeseGuy wrote: All Soldiers admit tresspass

Aparently, the other 11 soldiers have now admited to tresspassing, but won't be broadcast on TV due to "Britains changed attitude". This is the fucking stupedest thing I've ever heard. They either know that the videos have been analysed and show signs of discontent and hence refuse to show any more, or the other 11 are being mistreated and tortured and Iran don't want to let the world see the state they're in. The simple fact that the Iranian news used the term "clamorous British government policies" shows how they're brainwashing everyone.

I think the point you were making is that the marines and sailors admitted trespass under duress. And I agree. Held hostage in a hostile nation, its not the best for morale. To a point you'll go along with whatever your captors say they want you to do.

Heres something though. Why doesnt Britain just admit wrongdoing, get the marines back and stick up the political equivalent of the middle finger by immediately retracting the admission once the sailors are back aboard a Royal Navy vessel?

At 4/4/07 08:59 AM, Boltrig wrote:

Heres something though. Why doesnt Britain just admit wrongdoing, get the marines back and stick up the political equivalent of the middle finger by immediately retracting the admission once the sailors are back aboard a Royal Navy vessel?

Because the British, unlike Iran, have a sense of honor.